Dilger v. Moyles

Decision Date15 May 1997
Docket NumberNo. A074839,A074839
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3677, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6244 Dorothy DILGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. David MOYLES, Defendant and Respondent.

David K. Marble, Marble & Associates, Oakland, for appellant.

Christopher J. Beeman, Mark L. Dawson, Clapp, Moroney, Bellagamba, Davis & Vucinich, Menlo Park, for respondent.

ANDERSON, Presiding Justice.

Dorothy Dilger (appellant) was struck on the golf course by a ball hit by another golfer, David Moyles (respondent), whom she sued. She appeals the trial court's entry of summary judgment in his favor. We hold that the trial court was correct in finding that primary assumption of risk bars her lawsuit; accordingly, we affirm.


On the morning of April 26, 1994, appellant and two companions were golfing at Sky West Golf Course in Hayward. After teeing off on the fifth tee, appellant, who was 78 years old at the time, drove her golf cart to where her ball had landed--approximately 95 yards down the fairway. She stopped her cart on the left side of the fairway, which borders the fairway of the sixth hole. After stopping her cart, appellant was struck in the mouth by a ball hit by respondent from the sixth fairway. At the time he hit the ball, respondent was standing behind a row of trees which separated the fifth and sixth fairways. Respondent claimed these trees blocked the line of sight to where appellant was located. Whether or not respondent yelled "fore" upon hitting his errant shot was disputed.


Summary judgment may properly be granted if a defendant meets his burden of demonstrating that "one or more elements" of that cause of action "cannot be established" or that there is a "complete defense" to it, and plaintiff fails to meet her burden of showing a triable issue of material fact as to that defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2).) On appeal, we review de novo the record before the trial court. (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 548, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674.)

Appellant argues that the doctrine of assumption of risk is inappropriate as a defense for golfers. The California Supreme Court has found that participants generally do not have a duty to protect other participants against risks inherent in an active sport. (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 320, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) In Knight plaintiff's finger had to be amputated after defendant, a coparticipant, accidentally stepped on it during a game of touch football. (Id. at pp. 300-301, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) The court held that defendant's conduct did not breach any legal duty of care owed to plaintiff. (Id. at p. 321, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) The court found applicable the doctrine of assumption of risk to this sport because "vigorous participation in such sporting events likely would be chilled if legal liability were to be imposed on a participant on the basis of his or her ordinary careless conduct.... [E]ven when a participant's conduct violates a rule of the game and may subject the violator to internal sanctions prescribed by the sport itself, imposition of legal liability for such conduct might well alter fundamentally the nature of the sport by deterring participants from vigorously engaging in activity that falls close to, but on the permissible side of, a prescribed rule." (Id. at pp. 318-319, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696, original italics.) The court expressly declined to decide whether this rule should apply to less active sports such as golf: "Because the touch football game at issue in this case clearly falls within the rationale of this rule, we have no occasion to decide whether a comparable limited duty of care appropriately should be applied to other less active sports, such as archery or golf." (Id. at p. 320, fn. 7, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) Nevertheless, the court's reasoning in limiting active sports participants' liability applies equally as well to the sport of golf.

While golf may not be as physically demanding as other more strenuous sports such as basketball or football, risk is nonetheless inherent in the sport. 1 Hitting a golf ball at a high rate of speed involves the very real possibility that the ball will take flight in an unintended direction. If every ball behaved as the golfer wished, there would be little "sport" in the sport of golf. That shots go awry is a risk that all golfers, even the professionals, assume when they play.

Holding participants liable for missed hits would only encourage lawsuits and deter players from enjoying the sport. Golf offers many healthful advantages to both the golfer and the community. The physical exercise in the fresh air with the smell of the pines and eucalyptus renews the spirit and refreshes the body. The sport offers an opportunity for recreation with friends and the chance to meet other citizens with like interests. A foursome can be a very social event, relieving each golfer of the stresses of business and everyday urban life. Neighborhoods benefit by the scenic green belts golf brings to their communities, and wild life enjoy and flourish in a friendly habitat. Social policy dictates that the law should not discourage participation in such an activity whose benefits to the individual player and to the community at large are so great.

We have recently applied the Knight principles to the sport of sailing, an arguably less active sport than golf. In Stimson v. Carlson, (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1203-1204, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 670, we found the defense applicable to the captain of a sailboat who failed to warn his passenger of an intended change in course, resulting in serious injury when the passenger was hit on the arm by the boat's mainsheet: "By eliminating liability for unintended accidents, the doctrine [primary assumption of risk] ensures that the fervor of athletic competition will not be chilled by the constant threat of litigation from every misstep, sharp turn and sudden stop. [Citation.] On a larger scale, participation in amateur athletics is a socially desirable activity that improves the mental and physical well-being of its participants. The freedom to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP, H034535
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 2011
    ...(Domenghini v. Evans (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 118); sport fishing (Mosca v. Lichtenwalter (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 551); golf (Dilger v. Moyles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1452); 12. A number of courts have utilized the test enunciated in Record, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at page 482. (See, e.g., Truong v.......
  • Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2011
    ...Cal.Rptr.2d 917); sport fishing ( Mosca v. Lichtenwalter (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 551, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 58); golf ( Dilger v. Moyles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1452, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 591); participating in a touch football class ( Fortier v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 430, 5......
  • Shin v. Ahn, S146114.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 30, 2007
    ...holding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine did not apply. This holding was contrary to that in Dilger v. Moyles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1452, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 591 (Dilger), in which a different district of the Court of Appeal held that being struck by a ball is a risk inherent in golf......
  • Shin v. Ahn
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 21, 2006
    ...ricochet, and strike another player." (Id. at pp. 37-38, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 683.) American Golf relied on Dilger v. Moyles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1452, 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 591 (Dilger), which held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred a golfer's suit against another golfer, after the f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT