Court Opinion

ID: 9529320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:46.470881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:44.178961
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring.
While I concur fully with the majority, I write separately to emphasize the second prong of the test articulated in Douglass v. Irvin, 549 N.E.2d 368 (Ind.1990), which provides that the landlord is liable if he should expect the invitee will fail to discover or realize the danger or fail to protect against it. Id. at 370.
Any golfer in the rough of a hole which runs parallel to another should, as a matter of law, know the dangers of approaching golfers. To be surprised that approaching drivers hook or slice is akin to being surprised that not everyone shoots par.
We have said often that “there comes a point where this Court should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men [or women].” Willner v. State, 602 N.E.2d 507, 509 (Ind.1992). This is a shining example of the application of that maxim.