Opinion ID: 2518817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Defendant's summary judgment motion

Text: The remaining issue is whether defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The rules of review are well established. If no triable issue as to any material fact exists, the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (c); Kahn, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 1002-1003, 4 Cal. Rptr.3d 103, 75 P.3d 30.) In ruling on the motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party. ( Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.) We review the record and the determination of the trial court de novo. (Kahn, at p. 1003, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 103, 75 P.3d 30; Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 28 P.3d 116.) Here, summary judgment was properly denied because there are material questions of fact to be adjudicated. In determining whether defendant acted recklessly, the trier of fact will have to consider both the nature of the game and the totality of circumstances surrounding the shot. In making a golf shot the player focuses on the ball, unlike other sports in which a player's focus is divided between the ball and other players. That is not to say that a golfer may ignore other players before making a shot. Ordinarily, a golfer should not make a shot without checking to see whether others are reasonably likely to be struck. [11] Once having addressed the ball, a golfer is not required to break his or her concentration by checking the field again. Nor must a golfer conduct a head count of the other players in the group before making a shot. Many factors will bear on whether a golfer's conduct was reasonable, negligent, or reckless. Relevant circumstances may include the golfer's skill level; whether topographical undulations, trees, or other impediments obscure his view; what steps he took to determine whether anyone was within range; and the distance and angle between a plaintiff and defendant. Here plaintiff testified at his deposition that he and defendant made eye contact as I was cutting up the hill. He did not make clear, however, how far he had proceeded up the hill, how far away he was from the defendant, or whether he was stationary when the eye contact occurred. [12] At his deposition, defendant said he looked to see if the area directly ahead of him was clear. It is not apparent just how broad or limited that area was. This record is simply too sparse to support a finding, as a matter of law, that defendant did, or did not, act recklessly. This will be a question the jury will ultimately resolve based on a more complete examination of the facts. We do not suggest that cases like this can never be resolved on summary judgment, only that this record is insufficient to do so.