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

Heading: Court of Appeal cases applying Knight to golf

Text: In Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696, we expressly left open the question whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine should be applied to sports like golf. (Id. at p. 320, fn. 7, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) Subsequently, Courts of Appeal have grappled with the issue. As noted, in Dilger, supra, 54 Cal. App.4th 1452, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 591, the plaintiff was playing one hole when she was struck by a ball hit from another. Dilger sued the other golfer, in whose favor the trial court entered summary judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applied. [T]he court's reasoning [in Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696,] in limiting active sports participants' liability applies equally as well to the sport of golf. While golf may not be as physically demanding as ... basketball or football, risk is nonetheless inherent in the sport. Hitting a golf ball at a high rate of speed involves the very real possibility that the ball will take flight in an unintended direction. If every ball behaved as the golfer wished, there would be little `sport' in the sport of golf. That shots go awry is a risk that all golfers, even the professionals, assume when they play. Holding participants liable for missed hits would only encourage lawsuits and deter players from enjoying the sport. Golf offers many healthful advantages to both the golfer and the community. The physical exercise in the fresh air with the smell of the pines and eucalyptus renews the spirit and refreshes the body. The sport offers an opportunity for recreation with friends and the chance to meet other citizens with like interests. A foursome can be a very social event, relieving each golfer of the stresses of business and everyday urban life. Neighborhoods benefit by the scenic green belts golf brings to their communities, and wild life enjoy and flourish in a friendly habitat. Social policy dictates that the law should not discourage participation in such an activity whose benefits to the individual player and to the community at large are so great. ( Dilger, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1454-1455, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 591, fn. omitted.) In American Golf Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 30, 93 Cal. Rptr.2d 683, a golfer's shot ricocheted off a wooden yardage marker [5] and injured his companion. The companion sued the golf course for negligent design and placement of the marker. The Court of Appeal, relying upon Dilger, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 1452, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 591, applied the primary assumption of risk doctrine. (American Golf Corp., at p. 39, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 683.) It granted the golf course's petition for writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant its motion for summary judgment. (Id. at p. 33, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 683.) We hold golf is an active sport, errant shots are an inherent risk of golf, yardage markers are an integral part of the sport, and the golf course as recreation provider did not increase the risk of injury by its design and placement of the yardage marker. (Ibid.) The court in Hemady v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. (2006) 143 Cal. App.4th 566, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 considered the question of inherent risk in a different context. There, one student inadvertently hit another with a golf club during a seventh grade physical education class. The injured student sued the school district and the instructor for negligence. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Applying the primary assumption of risk doctrine, it concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' conduct was extraordinarily reckless within the meaning of Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at page 320, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696. (Hemady, at p. 572, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 464.) The Court of Appeal reversed. Noting that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars liability for those injuries arising from the particular risks that are inherent in a sport ( Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 315-316, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696), the Court of Appeal concluded that being hit on the head by a club is not an inherent risk in golf. Thus a conventional duty analysis was called for. (Hemady, at p. 576, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 464.)