Golfer recovers against course after getting beaned

The Illinois Appellate Court recently was faced with an issue that comes up suprisingly often: can a patron at a golf course recover when struck by another golfer's ball? In a word, yes.

In Sullivan-Coughlin v. Palos Country Club, the plaintiff had just finished her round and was riding in a cart with a family member. As the cart neared the pro shop/cart return, the driver heard what she described as a "whack". She looked over, saw the plaintiff fall out of the cart and hit her head on the pavement. The witness apparently never saw the ball but felt the noise she heard came from a golf ball hitting the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result of the incident.

There was conflicting evidence about whether the pro shop came under fire from errant golf balls. A restuarant worker denied evers seeing balls land near the area although he admitted he had heard rumors that occasionally, the pro shop did get hit. Another witness testified that the very same restuarant worker told him that golf balls came flying into the area at least once a week. In addition, both sides presented evidence from experts on the safety of the golf course layout. The jury awarded the plaintiff nearly $460,000 and reduced it to approxamately $321,000 for plaintiff's comparative negligence. The defendant appealed after post trial motions were denied. The primary ground on appeal was the there was no evidence at trial showing the defendant should be on notice that the area was unreasonably dangerous.

The Appellate Court held the golf course was liable. It concluded that plaintiff had indeed put on enough evidence[through the restuarant worker and the other witnesses]that the golf was on notice that errant shots were coming into the area rather frequently[the fact that the Golf Course had put up a fence to protect patrons from bad shots didn't exactly help]. The lower court decision was upheld.


THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY RESPONDS...

A doctor in Pennsylvania actually responded to my recent post about the doctor who wanted to introduce a Resolution at the annual AMA meetings where doctors could refuse to treat trial attorneys. Not suprisingly, he didn't agree with my opinion of the resolution. More on his response in the next post...