Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482

In this California Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court held that "the primary assumption of risk doctrine [applies] to golf and that being struck by a carelessly hit ball is an inherent risk of the sport." Accordingly, in order to establish liability for an injury caused by an errant golf shot, a plaintiff must show that the defendant golfer "engaged[ ] in conduct that was 'so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in golf.'" (Click here to read the Court’s opinion.)

Defendant Jack Ahn had carelessly teed off while his playing partner, plaintiff Johnny Shin, was nearby. The resulting errant shot injured Shin. The parties disputed whether Ahn knew Shin’s location at the time he hit the ball. The Court of Appeal held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine did not apply to shield Ahn from liability because Ahn and Shin were in the same playing group, and therefore Ahn had a duty to know Shin’s whereabouts. The Court of Appeal relied on the fact that Ahn had violated a rule of golf by not knowing the location of his playing partner, and noted that the assumption of risk doctrine would have applied if Ahn’s drive had hit a golfer on a different fairway and in a different playing group.

The Supreme Court’s opinion criticized the reliance by Shin and the Court of Appeal on golf's rules of etiquette, noting that these rules "govern socially acceptable behavior" and do not constitute evidence of legal liability. The Supreme Court also criticized the lower court’s distinction between cases involving injuries to playing partners and injuries to golfers on different fairways, holding that "we are not persuaded that a case should turn on whether a defendant is playing with the plaintiff, or in another group.” Rather, “[t]he question of duty involves the relationship of the parties to the sport." The Court then identified a number of factors to guide the determination of whether a golfer has acted reasonably, negligently, or recklessly, including "the golfer's skill level; whether topographical undulations, trees, or other impediments obscure his view; what steps he took to determine whether anyone was within range; and the distance and angle between a plaintiff and a defendant."

Horvitz & Levy LLP represented various amici curiae in support of defendant Jack Ahn, and participated in the Supreme Court oral argument of the case. (Click here to read the Metropolitan-News Enterprise article regarding the Supreme Court's decision.)

Home | Firm Directory | About H & L | Practice Areas | H & L News
Seminars | Publications | Recruiting | Directions | Links | Site Map