Rinaldo v. McGovern

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceDuty to WarnSports Injuriesgolf ballstray ballmishit shotslice

Facts

Defendants were teeing off from the eleventh hole and each intended to hit straight down the fairway, not toward the trees or adjacent road. Each sliced his ball to the right, and one ball traveled through or over a screen of trees onto a public roadway, where it shattered plaintiffs' windshield and injured Roberta Rinaldo. There was no evidence that either golfer was careless apart from making an inept tee shot. Plaintiffs alleged negligence and failure to warn.

Issue

Can a golfer be held liable in negligence or for failure to warn when he accidentally slices a tee shot off the course and the ball strikes travelers on an adjacent public road? More specifically, does a mishit shot alone or the failure to shout a warning create a triable tort claim under these circumstances?

Rule

A golfer ordinarily is not liable to persons entirely outside the boundaries of the golf course who are struck by a stray mishit ball. A failure-to-warn claim fails where the warning would have been too remote or futile to prevent the accident, and a negligence claim based on a mishit ball requires affirmative proof that the golfer failed to exercise due care, such as by aiming so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm; the mere fact that the ball traveled in an unintended direction is insufficient.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a municipal golf course outside Columbus, Evan Porter hit a tee shot that unexpectedly hooked over a line of trees and struck a cyclist riding on a public street beyond the course. The cyclist sues Evan, offering no evidence about Evan's setup, aim, or swing other than that the ball went badly off line.

What is the strongest argument for Evan on summary judgment?

Explanation. The majority held that a mishit shot alone is insufficient to create a negligence claim. Tort liability requires both a recognizable risk and some basis to conclude the harm was reasonably preventable, and the plaintiff must affirmatively show lack of due care. The court rejected liability based solely on the fact that the ball flew in an unintended direction.