Pfenning v. Lineman
2011 Ind. LEXIS 376
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Pfenning, age 16, injured by a golf ball at a Whitey’s Scramble hosted at the Marion Elks golf course.
- Plaintiff brought claims against the Estate of Jerry A. Jones (grandfather), golfer Lineman, Whitey’s 31 Club, Inc., and Marion Elks Country Club Lodge #195.
- Event occurred August 19, 2006; beverage cart operated by plaintiff on cart path, accompanying adults and Whitey’s employee assisted.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants; plaintiff appealed claiming genuine issues of material fact on negligence, negligent supervision, premises liability, and incurrence of risk.
- Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part; Supreme Court granted transfer and issued a decision affirming Lineman and the Elks but reversing as to Whitey’s and the grandfather, and remanding.
- Court held that a participant in a sport may breach duty when conduct is outside the range of ordinary behavior, and that the applicable breach standard can be decided as a matter of law in appropriate sports-injury contexts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed by co-participants in sport | Pfenning argues Lineman breached duty by injuring her. | Lineman contends no duty to co-participants for inherent sport risks. | No duty found; conduct within ordinary range deemed not a breach. |
| Fore warning as a basis for liability | Pfenning claims failure to warn fore supports liability. | Lineman asserts warning is not a proximate-cause basis and within normal play conduct. | Warning omission not a proximate cause; not a breach. |
| Premises liability of Elks | Pfenning asserts Elks owed duty as landowner to invitees. | Elks argues no unreasonable risk or foreseeability; Burrell test applied. | Elks not liable; risk not an unreasonable premises danger. |
| Premises liability/Whitey’s liability | Whitey’s owed duty as promoter and supervisor; alleged failure to instruct and supervise. | Whitey’s argues no duty as promoter; lack of relationship/foreseeability. | Summary judgment not proper on Whitey’s; issues of duty, breach, and proximate cause remain. |
| Negligent supervision by grandfather | Grandfather owed duty to supervise a minor at the event. | No duty to protect against every hazard; may be no breach. | Grandfather not entitled to summary judgment; duty to supervise disputed facts preclude summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2010) (duty element in negligence requires court to balance policy and foreseeability)
- Parsons v. Arrowhead Golf, Inc., 874 N.E.2d 993 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (no-duty rule for co-participants in some sports; varying rationales)
- Bowman v. McNary, 853 N.E.2d 984 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (no duty to protect co-participants from inherent sport risks; focus on foreseeability and policy)
- Gyuriak v. Millice, 775 N.E.2d 391 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (concept of incurred risk and duty interplay with comparative fault)
- Geiersbach v. Frieje, 807 N.E.2d 114 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (discussion of sport-injury duty and public policy considerations)
- Heck v. Robey, 659 N.E.2d 498 (Ind.1995) (incurred risk cannot support lack of duty under Comparative Fault Act)