David D. Wooten v. Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC and Bernard J. Chamernik
63 N.E.3d 1069
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wooten and Chamernik were paired with two others in a Caesars-sponsored VIP golf scramble at Chariot Run; all teams used carts provided by the course.
- On the 14th hole (a blind shot), Malles and Wooten stopped their cart on a cart path near the green; Chamernik, following in a second cart while looking for his ball on the fairway, struck the rear of their cart at a low rate of speed.
- Wooten remained seated but reported neck pain, ringing in the ears, and later blurred vision; EMTs diagnosed whiplash and cleared him to continue; he later was diagnosed with neck sprain/strain and sued for negligence.
- Procedurally: Wooten sued Caesars, Chamernik, and Malles; Caesars settled, Malles was dismissed, and Chamernik moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted; Wooten appealed.
- The trial court concluded, applying Pfenning v. Lineman, that driving a cart and a low-speed bump falls within the ordinary range of golf participant behavior and that no evidence of intent or recklessness existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving the golf cart and bumping the stopped cart is within the ordinary range of participant conduct in golf | Wooten: crashing a golf cart into another cart is not ordinary behavior and carts are not necessary to play golf, so this conduct can be negligent | Chamernik: use of carts and occasional low-speed bumps are commonplace and part of modern golf; his conduct was not reckless or intentional | Court: Conduct was within the ordinary range of golf behavior as a matter of law; absent evidence of intent or recklessness, no breach of duty — summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (adopts rule that participant conduct within the ordinary range of the sport is reasonable as a matter of law; intentional or reckless conduct remains actionable)
- Welch v. Young, 950 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (applies Pfenning and identifies factors to assess ordinary participant behavior; reverses where factual disputes prevent as-a-matter-of-law finding)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (observes that motorized carts have long been part of modern golf and are not inconsistent with the game)
- Peters v. Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 2004) (recites the elements of negligence)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (noting summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases but is proper when undisputed facts negate an element)
- Megenity v. Dunn, 55 N.E.3d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (recently addressing sports-injury liability; transfer noted)