Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantnegligencesummary judgmentsustained
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealsummary judgmentappellantappellee

Related Cases

Karas v. Strevell, 227 Ill.2d 440, 884 N.E.2d 122, 318 Ill.Dec. 567, 75 A.L.R.6th 663
View Case »
Gillespie v. Southern Utah State College, 669 P.2d 861, 13 Ed. Law Rep. 873
View Case »
Arnzen v. Temecula Valley Unified School District, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2017 WL 4942896
View Case »
Crouch v. National Ass’n For Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 845 F.2d 397
View Case »
Adams v. BRG Sports, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 93497, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 21,315
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Untitled Case 1742367832

Facts

Plaintiff Ryan Yoneda was injured when struck in the eye by an errant golf ball hit by defendant Andrew Tom while they were golfing at the Mililani Golf Course, owned by Sports Shinko. Yoneda was a passenger in a golf cart that was following the designated cart path, which looped behind a restroom building. Tom, who was playing in a separate group, did not warn Yoneda before hitting the ball. As a result of the incident, Yoneda sustained serious injuries to his left eye and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against both Tom and Sports Shinko.

Plaintiff-appellant Ryan Yoneda appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's November 14, 2003 first amended judgment, entered pursuant to orders granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Andrew Tom and Sports Shinko (Mililani) Co., Ltd. (Sports Shinko) [hereinafter, collectively, the defendants]. Briefly stated, this personal injury action arose out of an accident involving Yoneda, who was struck in the left eye by an errant golf ball that was hit by Tom.

Issue

Whether the assumption of risk doctrine bars Yoneda's negligence claims against Tom and Sports Shinko.

Whether the assumption of risk doctrine applies and, if so, whether Yoneda's claims against the defendants are barred as a matter of law.

Rule

The primary implied assumption of risk doctrine applies to bar negligence claims in sports-related incidents where the risks are inherent to the activity. A participant in a sport assumes the risks associated with that sport unless the other participant's conduct is intentional or reckless. Additionally, a business owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of invitees but is not liable for inherent risks of the sport.

Primary implied assumption of risk applied to bar plaintiff golfer's negligence claim against defendant golfer, after plaintiff was struck in the eye by an errant golf ball that was hit by defendant; there was an inherent risk that golf participants would be hit by errant shots, and plaintiff adduced no evidence that defendant intentionally injured him or acted recklessly beyond the ordinary activities involved in golfing.

Analysis

In this case, the court found that the inherent risk of being struck by an errant golf ball is part of the sport of golf, and thus, Tom's actions did not constitute intentional or reckless conduct. Therefore, the primary implied assumption of risk doctrine applied to bar Yoneda's negligence claim against Tom. However, the court also identified a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Sports Shinko's design of the golf course increased the risk of injury, which precluded summary judgment against the owner.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Tom but vacated the judgment against Sports Shinko, remanding the case for further proceedings regarding the golf course's design.

We therefore conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Tom, as the primary implied assumption of risk doctrine applies to bar Yoneda's negligence claim against him.

Who won?

The court ruled in favor of Andrew Tom, concluding that the primary implied assumption of risk doctrine barred Yoneda's negligence claim against him. The court reasoned that the risks associated with golfing, including being struck by a golf ball, are inherent to the sport, and Tom's failure to warn did not rise to the level of intentional or reckless conduct that would negate the assumption of risk.

The court affirmed that portion of the amended final judgment entered in favor of Tom, reasoning that the assumption of risk doctrine barred Yoneda's claims against him, as the risks of being struck by a golf ball are inherent to the sport of golf.

You must be