Suppose you are golfing with a buddy and you hit a bad shot. A really, really bad shot. As in, you hit him in the head and he goes blind in one eye. Is that your fault? Are you legally responsible?
The New York Court of Appeals is set to decide just that issue, in a case that will revolve around a concept known as assumption of risk. Under assumption of risk, a plaintiff cannot sue for injuries caused by a risk which is inherent in the activity. In such cases, absent an exception, there is no duty of care from the defendant to the plaintiff. With no duty, there can be no negligence.
The trial court dismissed the case of blinded golfer Dr. Azad Anand, ruling that the assumption of risk of golfing protected his golf buddy, Dr. Kapoor. A New York appellate court agreed 3-1 finding that Anand was not in the foreseeable danger zone and that Dr. Kapoor did not have a duty to yell “Fore!” Though the dissent argued that there was a factual question under existing case law about whether Dr. Kapoor violated the sport’s rule and unreasonably increased Dr. Anand’s risk.
The New York Court of Appeals is likely to consider just that question when they decide the case. Is there a factual issue involving the blinded golfer that needs to be resolved at the trial level, or can this case be decided by a judge as a matter of law?
Related Resources:
- Golfer Sues Buddy (The Associated Press)
- 10 Injured in Roller Coaster Collision (FindLaw)
- Assumption of Risk (FindLaw)
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
