Sanchez v. Candia Woods Golf Links
13 A.3d 268
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Sanchez injured on September 4, 2006 while playing golf at Candia Woods.
- Candia Woods installed yardage markers mid fairways, roughly four feet high and four-by-four inches; markers were removable, Sanchez unaware.
- Sanchez admitted sometimes bending rules in play; he intended to hit around a visible marker when injured.
- Ball ricocheted off the yardage marker on the eleventh hole, causing serious eye injury.
- Sanchez filed suit January 2009; Candia Woods moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to protect against inherent golf risks; court granted summary judgment.
- Appeal raised two issues: (1) non-delegable duty to provide a safe environment and inherent danger of marker placement; (2) timeliness of summary judgment prior to anticipated expert disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty or inherent danger of marker placement | Sanchez asserts Candia Woods breached a non-delegable duty to provide a safe environment. | Candia Woods contends yardage markers are not inherently dangerous and no duty to protect against inherent golf risks. | Markers not inherently dangerous; no duty to protect against inherent golf risks; summary judgment affirmed |
| Expert disclosure deadline and summary judgment | Sanchez argued delaying summary judgment pending expert disclosure was error. | Candia Woods argued expert testimony not required where no duty exists. | Expert testimony irrelevant where no duty; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 148 N.H. 407 (2002) (primary implied assumption of risk doctrine; no duty for obvious risks in recreational sports)
- Werne v. Executive Women's Golf Association, 158 N.H. 373 (2009) (inherent golf risks; liability only if increased risk beyond inherent risks)
- American Golf Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 79 Cal. App. 4th 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (recreation provider not to increase risk beyond inherent sport risk; marker did not increase risk)
- Baker v. Mid Maine Medical Center, 499 A.2d 464 (Me. 1985) (golf-related hazards; known risks of the sport)
- Hornstein v. State of New York, 46 Misc. 2d 486 (Ct.Cl. 1965) (example of assessing risks in a civil context against a public actor)
- Martins v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc., 172 F. App'x 14 (4th Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment for golf course owner on similar reasoning)
- Hawkes v. Catatonk Golf Club Inc., 288 A.D.2d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) (primary assumption of risk not to bar claims when plaintiff not in sport context)