When driving your golf cart on a golf course, ordinary negligence is the standard of care and not the “reckless misconduct” standard applicable to recreational activities according to the Michigan Court of Appeals in Bertin v Mann, No.328885.
FACTS:
Kenneth Bertin and
Douglass Mann were playing golf at the Farmington Hills Golf Club on May 22,
2013. When they reached the 17th hole, Bertin got out of the cart,
walked to the green where his ball was lying. As he began to walk toward his
ball, Mann drove the cart, first knocking him down, then running over his leg
causing injury.
Argument:
Bertin sued Mann
for negligence, alleging that Mann acted with “active negligence” and “without
due care and caution” when he struck him with the cart. Mann raised two
affirmative defenses. One, the event was an unforeseeable accident and, two,
Bertin’s own negligence was the sole cause or contributing cause of the
accident.
The parties
disagreed on the applicable standard of care. Bertin argued it should be
ordinary negligence while Mann argued it should be reckless misconduct under
the case of Richie-Gamester because the parties were playing a
game of golf, a recreational activity. The trial court agreed with Mann and the
jury entered a verdict for him.
The Court of
Appeals agreed with Bertin. It said that Richie doesn’t imply
that where injury occurs during a recreational activity, the incident must be
held to the reckless misconduct standard. “Indeed, we think it more likely that
players participate with the expectation that no liability will arise unless a
participant’s actions exceed the normal bounds of conduct associated with the
activity.”
Bertin raised two theories for
applying the ordinary negligence standard:
- A golf cart is a “motor vehicle” and thus is subject to
the civil liability provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code.
- A golf cart is not an inherent component of the game of
golf and thus doesn’t full under the “reckless misconduct” standard of
care under
The court
dismissed the motor vehicle argument but agreed with the argument that the
risks associated with the using of a golf cart are not an inherent component of
golf and thus not subject to the “reckless misconduct” standard of care.
The court
applied the following reasoning:
- The US Supreme Court in PGA Tour, Inc. v
Martin ruled that walking wasn’t an essential part of golf and
that using a golf cart wouldn’t change the nature of the game in the context
of the American with Disabilities claim.
- The US Golf Association’s Rules of Golf don’t refer
to golf carts.
- The Farmington Hills Golf Course doesn’t require the
use of golf carts.
The Court of
Appeals, holding that the trial court applied the wrong standard of care,
vacated the jury’s verdict, reversed the trial court’s verdict and remanded the
case for further proceedings.
Labels: Court of Appeals, Farmington Hills, Golf Cart, Golf Course, Michigan Appeals, Motor Vehicle, Ordinary Negligence, published opinion, Reckless Misconduct