The Hawaii Supreme Court recently considered whether a golfer and a golf course owner could be liable to another golfer hit by an errant ball.  In a unanimous opinion released on April 28, 2006, the Court gave guidance to Hawaii’s golfers and golf course owners concerning if and when they may be held liable to an injured golfer.

In Yoneda v. Tom, the plaintiff, Yoneda, was injured when he was struck in the eye by an errant ball hit by Tom from the fifth fairway of the Mililani Golf Course.  The ball struck Yoneda after his golf cart emerged from behind a restroom building, as he was proceeding from the fifth hole to the sixth hole tee box.  Tom did not yell any warning to Yoneda before Yoneda was struck by Tom’s ball.  Yoneda sued Tom and Sports Shinko, the owner of the golf course.

Stating the obvious, the Hawaii Supreme Court acknowledged that there is “an inherent risk that golf participants will be hit by errant shots.”  Given this inherent risk that all golfers assume by playing the game, the Court held that a golfer cannot be found liable for mere negligence, i.e., a bad shot.  For a golfer to be liable to another golfer, the conduct must be intentional or sufficiently reckless to be outside the normal part of the game.  In this case, where Yoneda was not in Tom’s line of play, was not in a location where one could reasonably assume a danger of being hit by a shot from the fairway toward the fifth hole, and was hidden from Tom’s view until it was too late to shout a warning, Tom could not be held liable to Yoneda.

Unlike the golfer, however, a different standard applies to the owner of the golf course. The owner of the golf course has a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to participants over and above those risks inherent in the game.  Thus, Sports Shinko had a duty to design a golf course to minimize the risk that players will be hit by golf balls, such as by the way the tees, fairways and holes are aligned or separated.  Yoneda argued that the routing of the cart path behind the restroom and out of the sight of golfers on the fifth fairway increased the risk of being hit by an errant shot.  The Hawaii Supreme Court held that Sports Shinko was not entitled to summary judgment because there was a factual dispute as to whether Sports Shinko had satisfied its duty to minimize the risk to its golfers.

The Yoneda analysis is not limited to golfers and golf course owners, but should apply to all sports injuries. Claims against a co-participant who causes the injury will prevail only where the conduct was intentional or reckless. Claims against the owners or organizers will prevail if they did not satisfy their duty to minimize the inherent risks of the activity. Owners and organizers can also minimize their risk by making disclosures and obtaining waivers from participants.