By: Theodore F. Claypoole
In Zeidman v. Fisher, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that general negligence principles applied to a case involving an injury caused by an errant “duck hook” shot on a golf course. After teeing off on the 17th hole, Plaintiff, with the agreement of his longer driving playing partners (which included Defendant), drove in his golf cart on the cart path over the crest of the hill to the green to determine whether the group playing in front of them had cleared the green, so that Plaintiff’s playing partners might safely tee off. Plaintiff made his observation and began his return trip on the golf cart path along the left side of the 17th hole. As he was approaching the tee box, and was within the line of sight of Defendant, Defendant launched a “duck hook”, which struck Plaintiff in the face causing serious and permanent injuries.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant by applying the assumption of risk and “no-duty” rules. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed on the basis that Plaintiff had presented evidence raising the issues of whether Defendant owed him a duty of care, and, since Defendant understood the forward observer mission undertaken by Plaintiff, whether Defendant breached that duty of care causing injury and damages to Plaintiff.
