User:Nonamefantasy/Parsons v. Arrowhead Golf

Secondary Sources:

On August 21, 2007, Victor Parsons was injured while playing at Arrowhead Golf Course. He and his wife decided to take action and file suit against the owners Gary and Kathy Oden, as well as the club itself. The situation in which Victor got injured can be described by the following: "After teeing off on the 16th hole and reaching the green, Victor drove his cart down the cart path toward the green, parked where the ropes were located, exited the cart and retrieved his putter from his golf bag. As he turned from the cart and stepped off of the cart path onto the green, he had to step down because of a drop from the asphalt path to the ground. He landed straight-legged, and he immediately experienced pain in his back. Victor stated that the area where he stepped was between two ropes and two posts, which created a pathway from the cart path to the 16th green. He estimated the drop that he encountered was between four and twelve inches deep. Victor had not noticed this drop before and had not paid attention to it."(Ronald W. Frazier (2))

Background

Golf course safety

When it comes to the safety of golf courses they take several precautions, for both the protection of their players, but also to prevent the possibility of someone trying to file a suit against them such as this case at hand. These precautions that are taken include locating potential hazards and covering or blocking them off, putting signs to redirect golfers, or simply fixing the safety issue then and there. This is typically a job for the maintenance crew, who is out on the course working every day to get the course in its bets shape, before any golfers are playing. This allows for extra time and provides a time for them to fix potential safety issues before they are run into by golfers. However, as golf courses are outside in nature, things happen all the time naturally. Whether it may be wind, rain, etc. trees or limbs can be knocked onto the ground. This is a part of golfing, and in most cases are not things a golf course can be held liable for as golfers took that responsibility and risk going into their round, which was their decision to play.

Case background

There was certainly an assumption of risk factor for these golfers. However, in certain instances there is a level of responsibility by the golf course. It is their duty of care to their customers, to keep the course in good condition, year round. It also the courses job to fix potential safety issues as soon as possible. If someone is injured from something that has been easily foreseeable for months, it is much more likely for them to be held liable. In this specific case, it appears Arrowhead was taking the correct precautions necessary to be deemed safe, and did not have any knowing of a potential injury awaiting without fixing it.

Argument

Parsons

The argument for the Parsons was that Arrowhead Golf Course allowed him to play on a golf course that was unsafe, not designed well, specifically hole 16. They said, "the layout of the 16th hole was negligently designed; that the pathway to the green of the 16th hole was negligently maintained and unsafe." (Ronald W. Frazier. Reference (2)) Parsons argued that there was not correct action taken to provide a safe course and environment for Victor. They also felt there was not any precautionary steps taken to alert Victor of the "dangerous" conditions of the golf course before he played.

Arrowhead Golf Course

Arrowhead golf course argued and fought that Victor Parsons voluntarily took action and participation in the sport and activity. They also showed that there was no knowing or evidence of a property defect. Victor assumed the risks of injury when choosing to play there.

Court decision

The court decided to agree with the Arrowhead Golf Course and said, "Victor was a voluntary participant in the sporting activity of golf and thereby assumed the risk of injuries as a result of all reasonably foreseeable parts of the game, including traversing the grounds of the golf course. The court found that, as a matter of law, the risk encountered by Victor, stepping into a lower area off of a cart path, was a reasonably foreseeable part of the game. Further, the court found that Victor was familiar with the greens and the approaches, and that the undisputed evidence was that no complaints or previous injuries had ever been reported to Arrowhead concerning the 16th hole and its change of elevation." (Ronald W. Frazier.(2)) was no proof of Arrowhead ignoring a known issue, failing to withhold their duty. Victor was not awarded suit against the golf course.

Impact

The impact of this suit was not as much as it would have been had the court awarded Victor money. However, it affected golf courses in the sense of making them be more careful and it pushed them to take extra precautions for such instances so they do not have to even worry about a golfer attempting to sue them. If they take these small minor precautions when they can now, it will help prevent further troubles from occurring. Overall, there was not too much of an impact because the golf course did not get successfully sued and golfers could not take much from Victor's injury and the way it happened.