469_C323
GOLF
INJURY DUE TO ERRANT BALL NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE
|
Homeowners |
Assumption of Risk |
In 2002, longtime friends and
golf buddies Anoop Kapoor
and Azad Anand went to a
course to play with another friend (Balram Verma). Anand sued Kapoor due to what happened shortly after they began
playing.
Anand had walked down the fairway to
locate his ball. In his deposition, he stated that, just as he turned to locate
his golf partners, he was struck by a ball. Anand
estimated he was no more than 20 feet in front of the person (Kapoor) who hit the ball. Kapoor
testified that he did not see either of his friends between him and the area he
was attempting to reach with his shot. Verma’s
testimony was inconsistent, as he described Anand’s
position quite differently on different occasions. Both Verma
and Anand stated they did not hear any warning prior
to the shot; while Kapoor testified that he did shout
out a warning.
The court had a photograph
that was created and submitted by the plaintiff which indicated each party’s
position on the course at the time the ball was struck. The photograph was
partially relied upon as its accuracy was uncontested.
Kapoor, after the depositions, filed a
motion for summary judgment. He asked the court to dismiss Anand’s
suit. He based the request on two grounds. One was that no verbal warning
should have been expected because no player was in his field of vision for the
shot he was attempted. Two was that, regardless of what happened, a golfer
assumes the danger of being injured by balls when he or she chooses to play
golf. Anand countered with testimony from an expert
witness (golf pro’s affidavit). The pro’s affidavit indicated that Kapoor erred by not taking the time to locate the other
players on the course and, again, erred by not shouting a warning. A court that
initially reviewed the matter agreed with Kapoor’s
argument and granted summary judgment. Anand
appealed.
Upon appeal the higher
court reviewed a number of cases it decided were relevant. The cases touched
upon the topics of owing warnings and assumptions of risk. The court decided
that, while Kapoor may have been prudent to shout a
warning, the testimony and exhibit photograph both indicated that no one was in
the intended flight path of the ball. Further, considering the position of the
players, a warning may not have prevented the accident since the ball flew in a
direction substantially different than what was expected or intended.
Therefore, the absence of a warning did not rise to the level of negligent
behavior. The court also concluded that golfing, along with many other sports,
includes a number of inherent dangers and, when choosing to play the sport;
participants assume the risk of facing those dangers.
The higher court indicated
that, while the accident was regrettable and did cause injury to the plaintiff,
the lower court ruling was justified. The summary judgment in favor of Kapoor was upheld.
Azad Anand, et
al., appellants, v. Anoop Kapoor,
respondent. No. 15942/05. Supreme Court of the State of