Hennessey v. Pyne
1997 WL 250782, 1997 R.I. LEXIS 206, 694 A.2d 691 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A golfer owes a duty of reasonable care to persons living in residences immediately adjacent to a golf course, particularly if the golfer knows such residences are within the normal range of striking distance for the golf shot being played and are frequently hit by errant balls, and may be liable for negligence if this duty is breached and causes injury. The doctrine of assumption of risk does not automatically apply to homeowners on their own property when the danger is externally imposed.
Facts:
- In 1990, Eileen Hennessey lived in a condominium directly adjacent to the Louisquisset Golf Club, a North Providence golf course, located in the crook of the eleventh hole's dogleg.
- Hennessey's backyard was approximately fourteen feet from the edge of the out-of-bounds marker about half-way down the fairway.
- Since 1990, during the heaviest part of the playing season, Hennessey's condominium was frequently hit by golf balls, sometimes up to ten times a day, leading her to install Plexiglas in various windows.
- Michael G. Pyne, the golf course's assistant pro, was well aware of the condominiums' presence, their proximity, and the propensity for golfers to hit them with misfired shots, and characterized Hennessey as "a chronic nuisance to golfers."
- One Sunday morning in mid-September, Pyne's eleventh-hole tee shot "veered slightly left" and struck Hennessey in the side of her head while she was gardening in her front yard, causing injury.
- Hennessey did not see Pyne's ball coming because trees obscured the eleventh-hole tee from her front-yard view.
- The record does not indicate whether Pyne shouted "fore" or attempted to give any warning either before or after he saw his tee shot heading off the course toward Hennessey's condominium.
Procedural Posture:
- Eileen Hennessey filed a civil action in Superior Court against Michael G. Pyne, the Louisquisset Country Club Condominium Association, and its executive board, alleging negligence, nuisance, and assault and battery against Pyne.
- Pyne answered the complaint, denying knowledge of hitting Hennessey and affirmatively alleging assumption of the risk.
- After discovery, Pyne filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing no evidence established negligence on his part.
- A Superior Court motion justice granted summary judgment in favor of Pyne on all counts, concluding Pyne owed no duty to Hennessey.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a golfer owe a duty of reasonable care to persons living in residences immediately adjacent to a golf course, such that the golfer may be liable for negligence when an unintentionally mishit ball strikes and injures a resident on her own property?
Opinions:
Majority - Flanders, Justice
Yes, a golfer does owe a duty of reasonable care to persons living in residences immediately adjacent to a golf course who are known by the golfer to be within the normal range of striking distance for the golf shot being played, and there are material factual questions preventing summary judgment regarding whether that duty was breached. The court applies an ad hoc approach to determining the existence of a duty, considering all relevant factors including the relationship of the parties, the scope and burden of the obligation, public policy, fairness, and the foreseeability of the risk. While generally the mere fact of being struck by a golf ball does not prove negligence, a duty of reasonable care arises when a golfer knows that residences are located within striking distance of where they are playing the ball. The court found material questions of fact concerning Pyne's breach of duty, considering his awareness of Hennessey's condominium's proximity, the frequent hitting of the condominiums by golf balls, his consciousness of Hennessey's presence, and the potential golfing advantage of playing close to the condominiums on that dogleg hole. Furthermore, the court held it was a jury question whether Pyne should have given an adequate warning, either before teeing off or after seeing his ball veer off course. The court also reversed summary judgment on the assumption of the risk defense, stating that the record did not support a conclusion that Hennessey was aware of the particular risk at the moment of injury, only a general risk. Moreover, the doctrine should not be applied liberally where injury occurs on a plaintiff's own property, as it would effectively force homeowners into home confinement rather than exercising their right to use their property.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and broadens the scope of a golfer's duty of care to adjacent property owners in Rhode Island, moving away from a presumption against liability for errant shots. By emphasizing foreseeability and a golfer's specific knowledge of hazardous conditions, the ruling establishes a more stringent standard for golfers whose shots frequently endanger neighboring residences. Critically, it limits the application of assumption of the risk, asserting that property owners should not be compelled to surrender their right to use their own land due to an external hazard. This decision will likely encourage golf courses and individual golfers to take more proactive measures to mitigate risks to adjacent properties, and future cases will scrutinize evidence of a golfer's awareness and actions more closely.
