Grisim v. TapeMark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament, PRO-AM

• Decision Date: 04 December 1987
• Docket Number: No. C9-86-706,PRO-AM,C9-86-706
• Citation: 415 N.W.2d 874
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: Mary GRISIM, Respondent, v. TAPEMARK CHARITYGOLF TOURNAMENT, et al., Southview Country Club, Respondents, Gene Koecheler, Petitioner, Appellant.

Page 874

415 N.W.2d 874

Mary GRISIM, Respondent, v. TAPEMARK CHARITY PRO-AM GOLF TOURNAMENT, et al., Southview Country Club, Respondents Gene Koecheler, Petitioner, Appellant.

No. C9-86-706.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 4, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Spectator at golf tournament assumes risks inherent in being on golf course; only duty owed to spectator is to provide reasonably safe area for watching tournament.

2. Doctrine of primary assumption of risk bars recovery by spectator against golfer participating in tournament because golfer owed no duty to spectator.

Mary C. Cade, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Scott D. Eller, Minneapolis, for respondents.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

We granted the petition of defendant Gene Koecheler to review that portion of the court of appeals' decision reversing the trial court's award of summary judgment in Koecheler's favor. We reverse in part and reinstate the order of the trial court granting summary judgment with respect to Koecheler.

Plaintiff Mary Grisim attended a charity golf tournament sponsored by TapeMark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament and TapeMark Company (TapeMark), and held at Southview Country Club (Southview). At the 18th hole, Grisim sat down under a tree to the left of the green after seeing the bleachers behind the green, a designated area for spectators, were very crowded. Koecheler, an amateur golfer playing in the charity tournament, hit his tee shot on the par three, 18th hole. The ball hooked left and struck Grisim in the left eye. Tragically, Ms. Grisim's left eye had to be removed due to the injury.

Grisim filed suit against TapeMark, Southview, and Koecheler. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The trial court found that Grisim chose to sit under the tree instead of the designated area behind the green and, in doing so, assumed those risks inherent in a golf tournament, including being hit by an errantly struck golf ball.

The court of appeals reversed the trial court's award of summary judgment, concluding that factual issues remained as to whether TapeMark or Southview provided adequate protection for spectators. The court also reversed with respect to Koecheler, concluding that the trial court erred when it applied the same duty of care to Koecheler as it did to TapeMark and Southview. Grisim v. TapeMark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament, 394 N.W.2d 261 (Minn.App.1986).

We disagree that any factual issues remain with respect to Grisim's claim against Koecheler. We find that Grisim's claim against Koecheler is barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. In Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 192 N.W.2d 826 (1971), we explained that, "[p]rimary assumption of risk, express or implied, relates to the initial issue of whether a defendant was negligent at all--that is, whether the defendant had any duty to protect the plaintiff from a risk of harm." Id. at 24, 192 N.W.2d at 827. We have previously held that the sole duty owed to a spectator at a baseball game is to provide a spectator with the choice of observing the action from a reasonably protected area or of assuming the risk and sitting in an area less protected from the inherent dangers of the sport. See Wells v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Ass'n, 122 Minn. 327, 331, 142 N.W. 706, 708 (1913). We find that the reasoning of that case applies...