Nussbaum v. Lacopo
317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 27 N.Y.2d 311, 265 N.E.2d 762 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of a golf course and a golfer are not liable for injuries sustained by an adjacent landowner from an errant golf ball when the injury is unforeseeable due to natural barriers. A property owner who chooses to live adjacent to a golf course assumes the risk of occasional, errant balls, and a golfer's duty to warn does not extend to persons outside the foreseeable zone of danger.
Facts:
- Wilbur Nussbaum's home was located on property that abutted the thirteenth hole of the Plandome Country Club.
- A 20 to 30-foot-wide area of dense rough and a natural barrier of 45 to 60-foot-high trees separated Nussbaum's patio from the fairway.
- The intended line of flight for a golf ball from the tee to the green was at a substantial angle away from Nussbaum's property line.
- Over several years, Nussbaum had found a few errant golf balls in the bushes and fence area of his property.
- On June 30, 1963, Paul Lacopo, who was trespassing on the golf course, hit a high, hooking shot from the thirteenth tee.
- The ball traveled over the barrier of trees and struck Nussbaum while he was on his patio.
- Lacopo did not see Nussbaum and did not shout a warning.
Procedural Posture:
- Wilbur Nussbaum filed a lawsuit against Paul Lacopo and Plandome Country Club, Inc. in a New York trial court, alleging nuisance and negligence.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prove a prima facie case.
- Nussbaum (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- Nussbaum (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a golf club and a golfer breach a duty of care to an adjacent landowner when an extraordinarily errant golf ball clears a substantial natural barrier and strikes the landowner on his property?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
No. Neither the golf club nor the golfer breached a duty of care because the accident was not a foreseeable event. The court reasoned that for the golf club, liability for nuisance requires a continuous invasion, which occasional errant balls do not constitute. In negligence, the club lacked notice of any specific danger of balls clearing the tall trees, and the existence of the 45-60 foot barrier made such an event unforeseeable. For the golfer, a single 'bad shot' is not inherently negligent, as it is a common part of the game. Furthermore, the golfer's duty to warn ('Fore!') only extends to those in the reasonably anticipated zone of danger, like other players, not to an adjacent resident who would likely ignore such warnings. The court concluded that a person who chooses to live next to a golf course assumes the risk of such 'occasional, concomitant annoyances.'
Dissenting - Bergan, J.
Yes. A jury could reasonably find that both the golf club and the golfer breached a duty of care, and the case should have been allowed to proceed to trial. The dissent argued that proof of golf balls landing on the plaintiff's property two to three times a week for several years was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the club had notice of a foreseeable danger and failed to take appropriate precautions. Regarding the golfer, a shot that is so poor it clears a major barrier and strikes a person on their private property could be deemed negligent by a jury. The dissent emphasized that a homeowner's right to safety on their own property should not be superseded by the benefits of living near a golf course.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of assumption of risk for landowners whose property abuts recreational areas like golf courses. It establishes a high bar for proving foreseeability in negligence cases involving errant projectiles, requiring notice of a specific, probable danger rather than just a remote possibility. The ruling distinguishes the duty of care owed to adjacent homeowners from the higher duty owed to travelers on a public highway. For future cases, this precedent makes it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed without demonstrating that a club had clear notice of balls breaching protective barriers or that a player's actions were more than just a single, poorly executed shot inherent to the sport.
