Law.com
  • News
    • Newswire
    • Large Firm
    • Corporate Counsel
    • Technology
    • Washington
    • Supreme Court
    • International
    • Legal Blog Watch
    • Video
  • Publications
    • The American Lawyer
    • Corporate Counsel
    • Law Technology News
    • The National Law Journal
    • New York Law Journal
    • New Jersey Law Journal
    • Connecticut Law Tribune
    • The Legal Intelligencer (PA)
    • Daily Business Review (FL)
    • Delaware Law Weekly
    • Daily Report (GA)
    • The Recorder (CA)
    • Texas Lawyer
    • Publication E-Alerts
    • More Publication Sites
  • Legal Research & Directories
    • Books Online
    • Smart Litigator
    • ALM Experts
    • Verdict Search
    • Court Reporters
    • Legal Dictionary
    • LegalTech® Directory
    • Newsletters
    • More Directories
  • Surveys, Lists & Rankings
    • Amlaw 100
    • NLJ 250
    • Global 100
    • The A-List
    • ALM Legal Intelligence
    • Surveys
    • More Lists & Rankings
  • lawjobs.com
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Resume
    • The Careerist Blog
    • News & Views
  • LawCatalog Store
    • Books Online
    • Best-Selling Books
    • Books
    • Directories
    • E-Newsletters
    • Magazines
    • Newspapers
    • Newsletters
    • Surveys
    • Research Services
    • Webinars
    • Events
  • CLE & Events
    • CLE Center
    • ALM Events
    • LegalTech
    • Virtual LegalTech
    • Insight Legal Events
    • Webinars
Home
 
Article
  • email
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • alert
  • rss

Law.com Home > Golfer Had No Legal Duty to Yell 'Fore' Before Shot, Split Panel Finds

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Golfer Had No Legal Duty to Yell 'Fore' Before Shot, Split Panel Finds

By Jeff Storey All Articles 

New York Law Journal

April 28, 2009

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 

Dale Wilson, Getty Images

A Long Island golfer did not have a legal duty to yell "fore" before taking a shot that blinded a friend and fellow-physician in one eye, a divided appeals court has ruled.

The New York state Appellate Division, Second Department, held in Anand v. Kapoor, 2007-05606, that Anoop Kapoor could not be held liable to Azad Anand for ignoring one of the "universally recognized" customs of golf before he shanked a ball into Dr. Anand's left eye.

The decision represents a refinement, if not an overturning, of a line of precedents fashioned by the courts to deal with accidents stemming from a game that was played by 29.5 million Americans in 2007, according to the National Golf Foundation.

Such accidents are not unusual. Even with the most intense concentration on the part of players, a 45.93-gram golf ball can fly off in unpredictable directions, striking people and property.

The 3-1 Second Department majority affirmed in an unsigned opinion a lower court's dismissal of Anand's personal injury suit, holding that, given the circumstances of the accident, Dr. Kapoor could not have reasonably anticipated that Anand was in any danger from his shot.

But even if Kapoor had been negligent, it held that the suit had to be rejected because the risk of being struck by a misdirected shot is an "inherent" part of golf.

"While we are sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of this accident," the panel observed, "to conclude that the defendant can be held 'liable' in tort for a poorly-executed golf shot because he may have negligently failed to shout 'fore' is inimical to the rationale underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, and at odds with the public policy goal for its adoption" -- to encourage "free and vigorous participation" in sports and recreational activities."

Justice Cheryl E. Chambers (See Profile) argued in a signed dissent that there was a question of fact as to whether Kapoor's violation of golfing procedures unreasonably increased the risks to other competitors.

On the morning of Oct. 19, 2002, Anand and Kapoor and Balram Verma went to the Dix Hills Park Country Club in Nassau County. The three friends had known each other for 25 years and often played golf together, although Kapoor said in a deposition that he was not an "expert" and only "played" at the game.

After each had hit his first two shots toward the first hole of the nine-hole course -- a 280-foot par four -- they separated and went to look for their balls.

According to the decision, Anand and Verma testified in their depositions that Anand was on the fairway, approximately 15 to 20 feet in front of Kapoor, whose ball was in the rough to the left. Verma said that Anand was at an angle of some 50 degrees from the hole in the green where Kapoor was directing his shot. Kapoor recalled that Anand was a considerably greater distance in front of him and at an angle of 60 to 80 degrees from the intended line of flight to the hole.

Kapoor testified that he did not see anyone standing between his ball and the hole when he approached to make his third shot, but he admitted that he did not actually know where either of his friends were standing prior to hitting the ball. He claimed he shouted out a warning when he realized that the ball was headed in Anand's direction. Neither of his companions heard a warning.

As Anand turned to determine where the other members of the threesome were, Kapoor loosed a shot that went sharply to the right at a low trajectory, striking Anand in the left eye.

Anand sued, but in May 2007, New York State Supreme Court Justice Joseph DeMaro (See Profile) granted summary judgment to Kapoor, dismissing the lawsuit on grounds that the defendant was not negligent and that Anand had, in any case, assumed the risk of injury through his voluntary participation in the sport.

The Second Department affirmed.

Its decision acknowledged a line of decisions, starting with Jenks v. McGranghan, 30 NY2d 475 (1972), which held that a golfer has a duty to give a timely warning before shooting to other persons "within the ambit of dangers."

Here, testimony, corroborated by a photographic recreation of the accident by Anand's counsel, convinced the majority that Anand was so far from Kapoor's intended "line of flight" that he could not have reasonably anticipated his golfing partner might be struck by a misdirected shot.

But the majority went further.

"More fundamentally we note that a rule recognizing that liability can be predicated upon a golfer's negligent failure to give warning before hitting the ball is inconsistent with the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk as it has developed in the Court of Appeals since 1972," the majority said.

Under that doctrine, voluntary participants in sporting and recreational activities are deemed to have consented to "commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation." Morgan v. State of New York, 90 NY2d 471 (1997).

Only reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks, can give rise to liability, the panel noted.

According to Anand's brief, a golf professional testified for Anand that pursuant to "universally recognized" rules and procedures, the golfer who reaches his ball first and is the greatest distance from the green should take the first shot after first ascertaining the positions of his fellow competitors. If other people are in a position where an "errant" shot could strike them, the golfer warns them he is about to shot by shouting "fore."

However, the Second Department panel found that the "carelessness" of failing to follow these procedures "does not rise to the level of creating a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers inherent in participating in the sport of golf."

Justices Fred T. Santucci (See Profile), Daniel D. Angiolillo (See Profile) and Randall T. Eng (See Profile) joined the decision.

Kapoor was represented by William D. Hartlein of Ray, Perrone & Hartlein in Mineola, N.Y.

Anand was represented by Susan E. Dantzig of the law firm of Steven Cohn, P.C. in Carle Place, N.Y.



Subscribe to New York Law Journal

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • National Golf Foundation
  • Dix Hills Park Country Club
  • Court of Appeals
  • Ray, Perrone & Hartlein

Key categories

    
  • Personal Injury

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Donovan Criticizes Secret Payoff to Lopez Victims
    •      
  2. Largest New York Firms Show Steady Growth
    •      
  3. The 2013 Am Law 100
    •      
  4. Real Estate Lawyers Target Closing Vendors
    •      
  5. Bernstein Upholds $78.4 Mil. Verdict in Phila. Med Mal Case
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

3-D Printing: The Next Big Thing in IP Law?

Best Legal Departments 2013

News Corp. Hires Ex-Skadden Communications Chief Bush

Law Firm Leaders' Confidence Slipping, Says Survey

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

CEIC: the Destination for Digital Investigation

Using Computer Forensics to Investigate IP Theft

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Rothstein Bankruptcy Trustee Files New Reorganization Plan
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Bar Wants Disbarment for Former Judge
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Bar Candidate Quits N.Y. Job To Satisfy N.J. Practice Bylaw

Pro Bono Work Proposed as Condition for Bar Admission
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Judge in Stop-and-Frisk Case Relishes Her Independence

Ground Is Shifting in 14-Year Litigation

Third Circuit Rejects NLRB Recess Appointment

Judges Weigh Delaware Court of Chancery's Arbitration Program
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Litigator of the Week: Who Needs a Jury Consultant?
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

DeKalb Judge Dismisses, Then Recuses

Jury Finds For Attorney In Legal-Mal Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Law.com Network
  • ADVERTISE

law.com

  • Tour the New Site
  • Newswire
  • Special Reports
  • International News
  • Lists, Surveys & Rankings
  • Legal Blogs
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Site Map

alm national

  • The American Lawyer
  • The Am Law Litigation Daily
  • Corporate Counsel
  • Law Technology News
  • The National Law Journal

alm regional

  • Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Daily Business Review (FL)
  • Delaware Law Weekly
  • Daily Report (GA)
  • The Legal Intelligencer (PA)
  • New Jersey Law Journal
  • New York Law Journal
  • GC New York
  • The Recorder (CA)
  • Texas Lawyer
  • The Asian Lawyer
  • Focus Europe

directories

  • ALM Experts
  • LegalTech® Directory
  • In-House Law Departments at the Top 500 Companies
  • Top Rated Lawyers
  • The American Lawyer Top Rated Lawyers
  • The American Lawyer Legal Recruiter's Directory
  • Corporate Counsel Top Rated Lawyers
  • The National Law Journal Leadership Profiles
  • National Directory of Minority Attorneys
  • Go-To Law firms of the Top 500 Companies

books & newsletters

  • Best-Selling Books
  • Publication E-Alerts
  • Law Journal Newsletters
  • LawCatalog Store
  • Law Journal Press Online

research

  • ALM Legal Intelligence
  • Court Reporters
  • MA 3000
  • Verdict Search
  • ALM Experts
  • Legal Dictionary
  • Smart Litigator

events & conferences

  • ALM Events
  • LegalTech®
  • Virtual LegalTech®
  • Virtual Events
  • Webinars & Online Events
  • Insight Information

reprints

  • Reprints

online cle

  • CLE Center

career

  • Lawjobs
About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Reprints  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions |  ALM User License Agreement