Title: Boozer v. Arizona Country Club
Citation: 102 Ariz. 544, 434 P.2d 630
Docket Number: 8426
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: December 7, 1967

102 Ariz. 544 (1967) 434 P.2d 630 George W. BOOZER, Jr., and Vermelle S. Boozer, his wife, Appellants, v. The ARIZONA COUNTRY CLUB, Arthur McCance and Ethel McCance, his wife, Bill Johnston and Jo Anne Johnston, his wife, Appellees. No. 8426. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. December 7, 1967. Rehearing Denied January 9, 1968. Forquer, Wolfe &amp; Rosen, by Robert C. Forquer, Phoenix, for appellants. Jennings, Strouss, Salmon &amp; Trask, by Rex H. Moore and William R. Jones, Jr., Phoenix, for appellee The Arizona Country Club. *545 Moore, Romley, Kaplan, Robbins &amp; Green by Philip A. Robbins and Marvin R. Kaplan, Phoenix, for appellees Johnston. Fennemore, Craig, Allen &amp; McClennen by Daniel T. Bergin, Phoenix, for appellees McCance. McFARLAND, Vice Chief Justice: Appellants, Vermelle S. Boozer and her husband, brought an action against The Arizona Country Club, Inc., Arthur McCance and his wife, and Bill Johnston (the club "pro") and his wife, all of whom were defendants below and appellees here. The action was for an injury to Mrs. Boozer sustained when she was struck by a ball driven by McCance. He drove the ball from the first tee, intending to send it north toward the first green, but the ball instead went in a northwesterly direction and struck Mrs. Boozer as she was driving balls north from one of the practice tees north and west of the first tee. The trial court awarded a summary judgment to each defendant, and plaintiffs have appealed. The facts are not entirely clear. It does not appear how far the practice tee was from the first tee, nor is it clear what the angle was between the direction McCance intended his ball to go and the direction in which it actually traveled. The view between the two tees was unobstructed. Modern golf tees are large, in order to facilitate the maintenance of grass on their surface. Tee markers placed on the tees indicate the place from which the players should tee off, and it is generally understood that they must stand behind an imaginery line drawn between the markers. By moving the markers from time to time grass in the area last used is given time to recover from the divots and the trampling of the players. Defendant Arizona Country Club, Inc., hereinafter called "the club," is a non-profit corporation owned by its members, who include the Boozers and the McCances. The record does not show whether Johnston, the club pro, is salaried, but he does have permission to run the practice range for his own profit, by making a charge for the use of balls furnished by him to any one wishing to practice. On the day of the accident, Mrs. Boozer paid for the use of a bucket of balls, proceeded to one of the tees of the practice range, and commenced to hit the balls to the north. Her complaint alleged that McCance was negligent in that he saw or should have seen her, and should have anticipated that she would be injured if his shot failed to travel in the intended direction; in that he failed to warn her, if he did see her; in that he failed to make sure that the areas where his ball might enter were free from other persons, if he did not see her. The complaint alleged that Johnston was negligent in that he knew or should have known of the possibility of injury to persons on the practice range, by persons driving balls from the first tee; and in that he failed to construct a fence or take some other protective measures on behalf of users of the practice range. The complaint alleged that the club was negligent in that it should have known of the possibility of injuries to persons using the practice range, by persons driving balls from the first tee, and should have taken protective measures such as building a fence. Generally, each defendant's answer contained a general denial, and pleaded contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and unavoidable accident. The motions for summary judgment were accompanied by affidavits, which stated that the course was laid out before Johnston came to work for the club; that under his contract of employment he had no right to alter the course or install protective devices; that the course was laid out like practically every other golf course in the country i.e., with parallel fairways; that the president, during his eleven years in office, had never seen or heard of any one on the practice tee being struck by a ball driven from the first tee. Mrs. Boozer's counter-affidavit stated that she had not, during her five years as a member of the club, heard of any one on the practice tee being struck by a ball driven *546 from the first tee; that Johnston operated the practice range for his own profit; that it was Johnston's duty to make recommendations to the club regarding safety measures; that Johnston placed the bag-holders on the practice tees, indicating where members must stand while practicing; that Exhibit "A" attached to Johnston's affidavit was inaccurate and not drawn to scale, and distorted the true situation by making it appear that the practice tee and the first tee were farther apart than they actually were; that (on information and belief) Johnston had actual notice of the dangerous situation existing. Mrs. Boozer's attorney also filed a counter-affidavit stating that he had The attorney's affidavit further stated that he had McCance's deposition shows that the tee markers were "approximately" twenty feet from the north end of the tee, and three feet from the East side of the tee; that he was able to observe the trajectory of his ball; that there was nothing between him and Mrs. Boozer; that "to the best of [my] recollection," Mrs. Boozer was "on the last practice tee, in front of the regular practice tees, which would be the first one first practice tee starting east in front of the regular practice tees;" that on that day, the club had set up practice tees north of the regular ones i.e., the markers had been moved forward that day; that he did not remember whether she was "near or close or far from" the markers, but "thought" that she was in between them; that he ordinarily hit the ball "pretty straight"; that "with relation to that line of palm trees down the side of number one, the West side of Number one tee," a reasonable estimate of how far back Mrs. Boozer was standing would be "in the neighborhood of 25 feet"; that he had played golf for over thirty years but had not "heeled" his ball on "very many occasions," and didn't recall any; that usually his ball erred in the other direction. Mrs. Boozer deposed that she had been playing golf at the club for about five years prior to the accident; that for two years she played nearly every day, and after that she played several times a week; that she had taken many golf lessons on the same practice range; that she had also practiced on that range without taking lessons; that she had never been hit on the practice tee, had never seen any one else hit there, and had never seen a ball hit across the place where she was when she was injured; that she had never hit a ball from number one tee to that place, but had seen others drive balls near that place but further down-range; that she knew that golf balls do not always go where they are aimed; that the practice tees were not full only two others were being used; that she picked the spot herself; that the practice tees had been moved forward, and "I couldn't tell you how far"; that the spot she selected was not too far from a palm tree, but she didn't know which one; that she thought that she was near the second palm tree but "I really don't know that"; that "I think I was in the first [space]"; that she picked the first space she came to, just because of "laziness"; that "It was the closest and I just took it"; that she heard no one holler "Fore." *547 Despite all of the material quoted above, there is no way of determining where Mrs. Boozer was or where Mr. McCance was, when the accident happened. The record does not show whether either Mrs. Boozer or McCance was left-handed, which would affect their relative positions and their ability to see each other. In order to make a definite determination of who, if any one, was negligent, the relative positions of these people must be known. We are not even sure of the exact locations of the first tee, or of the line of practice tees, as plaintiff's affidavit alleges that the diagram attached to Johnston's motion distorts and misrepresents the relative positions of the tees. Negligence is based on foreseeability. If the driving range had been placed directly in front of the first tee it would not be difficult for all three defendants to foresee harm to plaintiff, and to be held to be negligent if their legal relations to plaintiff made such a finding proper. Harm could be foreseen in such case because the practice tee would be in a direct line with the intended line of travel of the ball, and zero degrees deviation could cause plaintiff to be hit. If, on the other hand, the line of practice tees was placed further south, foreseeability of a ball's going in that direction would be near zero, as it would take a deviation of 90 degrees or more from the intended direction to harm the plaintiff a near impossibility. In such case, a directed verdict would be justified, and if the facts were clear and undisputed even a motion for summary judgment could be justified. Thus, in Benjamin v. Nernberg, 102 Pa. Super. 471, 157 A. 10, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff was upheld, where the facts showed that the ball deviated 50 degrees, and in Houston v. Escott, D.C., 85 F. Supp. 59, a summary judgment for the defendant was granted where the deviation was only about 26 degrees. But in both cases the facts were free from doubt. Somewhere between zero and 90 degrees, there is a dividing line a deviation *548 which might, as a matter of law, preclude a finding of negligence. The questions of contributory negligence and assumption of risk also depend upon the relative locations of the parties. The record does not show the distance between the tee markers, their exact location on the first tee, or the distance behind them from which the ball was struck. McCance might have ignored the markers, and teed off from any point on the first tee which is 85 feet by 130 feet. There is also no "hard" evidence of Mrs. Boozer's position. By placing McCance and Mrs. Boozer at different points within the range of the information in the record, the angle of deviation of the ball appears to have been between five and eighty degrees. The difficulties inherent in ascertaining the true facts in this case point up the reason why, as a general rule, issues of negligence and contributory negligence are not ordinarily proper subjects for summary adjudication, and should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner. 6 Moore's Federal Practice 2583, and cases cited therein. This principle is even more applicable in Arizona because of Arizona Constitution, Art. 18, § 5, A.R.S., which states that the defense of contributory negligence or assumption of risk "shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury." In Elson Development Company v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association, 99 Ariz. 217, 407 P.2d 930, we said that on a motion for summary judgment the trial court But the principle extends much further. If the material facts, although not in dispute, are uncertain, a summary judgment is improper. Valdosta Livestock Co. v. Williams, 31 F.R.D. 528 (D.C.N.C. 11/29/62); Chemical Foundation v. Universal-Cyclops, 2 F.R.D. 283 (D.C.Pa. 4/2/42). Since there were several persons in McCance's party on the first tee, and two other people practicing on the driving range near *549 Mrs. Boozer, it is obvious that a trial could result in evidence from which Mrs. Boozer's position can be ascertained with some degree of certainty. One of the affidavits filed was signed by the president of the club. Obviously, as a part owner of the club he stood to lose financially if the case were lost. In the case of Alvado v. General Motors Corporation, 229 F.2d 408 (2nd Cir.1955), the opinion had the following to say about such a situation: Similarly, in Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corporation, 321 U.S. 620, 64 S. Ct. 724, 88 L. Ed. 967, we find: See also Kirkpatrick v. Consolidated Underwriters, 227 F.2d 228 (4th Cir.1955), where the court said that a motion for summary judgment "was never intended to enable the parties to evade jury trials or have the judge weigh evidence in advance of its being presented." In Chemical Foundation v. Universal-Cyclops, 2 F.R.D. 283 (W.D., Pa. 4/2/42), the court said that "it was not the intention of Rule 56 that a case should be tried by affidavits as a substitute for trial in the usual way in open court where the right of cross-examination exists." And, in United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co., 1 F.R.D. 718 (D.Mass. 5/22/41), we find: Appellees argue that the affidavit of plaintiffs' attorney to the effect that he would produce certain witnesses at the trial was mostly hearsay, and not made on personal knowledge, and therefore was of no effect. It is true that the affidavit did not comply with the rule[1], and was subject to be stricken on motion. However, as stated in Barron and Holtzoff's Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol. 3, page 154, with reference *550 to Frederick Hart &amp; Company v. Recordgraph Corp., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 580: In United States for Use and Benefit of Austin v. Western Electric Company, 337 F.2d 568 (9th Cir.1964), we find similar language in a case where the document filed was not in proper form. The court said: The parties have cited many cases with regard to the liability or non-liability of the various defendants in the instant case. In our view, the applicability of these cases requires that the facts to which they apply first be determined. Upon such determination, the trial court can apply the law and decide whether to instruct the jury or direct a verdict. We do not know whether the facts that may be established at the trial will enable plaintiff's case to survive a motion for a directed verdict, but at this stage our feelings are similar to those of the judge in Wright &amp; Associates, Inc. v. Ullrich, 26 F.R.D. 19, (D.Minn. 8/1/60) when he wrote: Reversed and remanded. BERNSTEIN, C.J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur. [1] "56(e) * * * [A]ffidavits shall be made on personal knowledge * * * and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." 16 A.R.S.