Mallin v. Paesani
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3035, 892 A.2d 1043, 49 Conn. Supp. 457 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Connecticut, participants in non-contact, individual sports like golf owe a duty of reasonable care to other participants, rather than the higher standard of avoiding only reckless or intentional conduct applied to contact team sports under the sports exception doctrine.
Facts:
- Walter Mallin and John M. Paesani were both competing in a Professional Golfers Association (PGA) golf tournament on Tashua Knolls Golf Course in Trumbull.
- On or about October 2, 2002, during the tournament, John M. Paesani drove a golf ball.
- John M. Paesani's golf ball struck Walter Mallin in the head, on his right temple.
- Walter Mallin allegedly sustained injuries and losses as a result of being struck by the golf ball.
- Walter Mallin claims John M. Paesani was negligent, alleging he was inattentive, failed to drive the ball at an appropriate time and distance, failed to direct the ball away from others, failed to yell 'fore' to warn others, and failed to ensure safety before striking the ball.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 12, 2004, Walter Mallin filed a one-count complaint in the Superior Court of Connecticut against John M. Paesani, alleging negligence.
- On June 4, 2004, John M. Paesani filed a motion to strike Walter Mallin's complaint, accompanied by a memorandum of law.
- On July 2, 2004, John M. Paesani (as apportionment plaintiff) filed an apportionment complaint against Tashua Knolls Golf Course, the town of Trumbull, the Bridgeport Hospital Foundation, and Bridgeport Hospital.
- On July 19, 2004, Walter Mallin filed a memorandum of law in opposition to John M. Paesani's motion to strike.
- On August 20, 2004, the apportionment defendants, Tashua Knolls Golf Course and the town of Trumbull, filed an answer and special defenses to the apportionment complaint.
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 the 'sports exception' doctrine, which requires proof of reckless or intentional conduct for liability, apply to injuries sustained by a participant in a golf tournament, or is mere negligence sufficient to establish liability?
Opinions:
Majority - SKOLNICK, J.
No, the 'sports exception' doctrine does not apply to injuries sustained in a golf tournament, and mere negligence is sufficient to establish liability. The court affirmed that the standard of care in golf is reasonable care under the circumstances, as established in Walsh v. Machlin (1941). The court distinguished golf from 'contact team sports' like soccer, football, basketball, and hockey, where a reckless or intentional conduct standard applies based on the normal expectations of participants and the nature of the sport, as discussed in Jaworski v. Kiernan (1997). The court noted that Jaworski explicitly stated the heightened standard should apply 'to only those injuries occurring during team athletic contests involving contact as part of the game,' and that golf is neither a team sport nor involves contact with other participants as part of the game. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's refusal to extend the sports exception to skiing in Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc. (2004) reinforces the principle that the exception is limited to contact team sports due to vastly different participant expectations.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it reinforces the narrow scope of Connecticut's 'sports exception' doctrine, clearly distinguishing between contact team sports and individual, non-contact sports for liability purposes. By affirming a negligence standard for golf, it ensures that participants in less inherently dangerous or confrontational sports are still held to a standard of reasonable care, preventing an overly broad application of the recklessness standard. This decision provides clarity for future cases involving injuries in diverse sporting activities, suggesting courts will closely examine the 'normal expectations of participants' and the nature of physical contact inherent in a sport when determining the applicable standard of care.
