Hennessey v. Pyne

Majority - Flanders, Justice

Yes, a golfer does owe a duty of care to persons living in residences immediately adjacent to the golf course who are known to be within the normal range of striking distance for the golf shot being played, and no, the plaintiff in this case did not, as a matter of law, assume the risk of injury. The court determined that the existence of a duty is a legal issue for the court, which considers factors such as the relationship of the parties, the scope and burden of the obligation, public policy, and fairness. The 'risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.' When a golfer knows residences are located within striking distance, the golfer has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of those people. Material questions of fact existed regarding whether Pyne breached this duty, considering his awareness of Hennessey's condominium's proximity, the regular striking of the condominiums by golf balls, Hennessey's vocal presence, and the potential golfing advantage of driving the ball close to her property. Regarding the duty to warn, the court stated that while a golfer generally must give timely warning to those in danger, it is a jury question whether Pyne should have anticipated danger to Hennessey and warned her, given her property's propinquity and the proclivity of golf balls to go astray. The possibility of an ineffective warning was not clear enough for summary judgment. The court reversed the summary judgment on the negligence claim. Conversely, the court affirmed summary judgment on the nuisance, assault, and battery claims, finding that Pyne's single errant shot was not a continuous invasion required for nuisance, and there was no evidence of intent to cause offensive contact or apprehension of harm required for assault and battery. Regarding assumption of risk, the court stated that in the absence of an express agreement, a defendant must prove the plaintiff knew of the danger, appreciated its unreasonable character, and voluntarily exposed themselves to it. Since Hennessey did not see Pyne's specific shot, she could not have been aware of that particular risk. Furthermore, compelling a homeowner to remain indoors or wear protective gear to avoid injury on their own property does not constitute a voluntary assumption of risk, particularly when the injury occurs on the plaintiff's own property, which is safe in itself but made dangerous by missiles from adjacent land. Therefore, whether Hennessey voluntarily assumed the risk was a factual question for the jury.