Shin v. Ahn
165 P.3d 581, 42 Cal. 4th 482, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The primary assumption of risk doctrine, which limits a sports participant's duty of care to refraining from intentional injury or conduct so reckless as to be outside the ordinary activity of the sport, applies to non-contact sports like golf. Being struck by a carelessly hit golf ball is an inherent risk of the sport.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Johnny Shin and defendant Jack Ahn were playing golf in the same group with a third person.
- After finishing the 12th hole, Ahn went to the 13th tee box to prepare for his next shot.
- Shin walked to a position approximately 25 to 35 feet away from Ahn, in front of and to Ahn's left, at a 40- to 45-degree angle.
- Shin stopped in this location to get a water bottle from his golf bag and check his cell phone for messages.
- Shin acknowledged knowing that he was in front of the tee box, that Ahn was preparing to hit, and that he should stand behind a player who is teeing off.
- Ahn hit his tee shot, which he 'pulled' to the left, striking Shin in the temple.
- The parties dispute whether Ahn was aware of Shin's location before he swung; Shin claimed they made eye contact, while Ahn stated he did not see anyone in front of him.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Johnny Shin sued defendant Jack Ahn for negligence in a state trial court.
- Ahn moved for summary judgment, arguing the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred the claim.
- The trial court initially granted Ahn's motion but then reversed its own ruling, concluding that triable issues of material fact remained.
- The Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, but held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine did not apply because the parties were in the same playing group.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to resolve the issue.
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 primary assumption of risk doctrine, which limits a participant's duty of care in a sport, apply to the non-contact sport of golf, such that a golfer is only liable for injuries caused by intentional or reckless conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Corrigan, J.
Yes. The primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to the sport of golf, meaning a participant's duty is limited to not intentionally causing injury and not engaging in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. The court extended the doctrine from contact sports, reasoning that errant shots are an inherent risk in golf and imposing liability for mere negligence would deter participation. The court rejected the lower court's distinction between golfers in the same versus different playing groups, stating that all coparticipants on a course have the same relationship to the sport. While a violation of a rule of etiquette, such as failing to ensure the area is clear, does not create legal liability, a triable issue of fact remains as to whether Ahn's conduct was reckless under the totality of the circumstances.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennard, J.
No. The no-duty-for-sports rule established in Knight v. Jewett should not be extended to golf; instead, traditional principles of tort liability should apply. This opinion reiterates a long-standing disagreement with the primary assumption of risk doctrine, arguing it is amorphous and tears at the fabric of tort law. Rather than remanding for a jury to decide if the defendant's conduct was reckless, the case should proceed to trial for the jury to decide if the defendant was negligent, and if so, whether the plaintiff, under the traditional defense of implied assumption of the risk, truly appreciated and voluntarily consented to the specific risk posed by the defendant's negligent conduct.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for formally extending the primary assumption of risk doctrine from contact sports to a non-contact sport, clarifying that the doctrine's application hinges on the inherent risks of a given activity, not the level of physical contact. By establishing recklessness as the standard of care for golfers, the court reinforces the judicial policy of encouraging vigorous participation in recreational activities without the chill of litigation for ordinary negligence. The ruling provides a clear precedent for future cases involving injuries in other non-contact sports, solidifying the recklessness standard for coparticipant liability in California.
