RUTH RINDLEY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
GERTRUDE GOLDBERG, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ruth Rindley was struck by a golf ball hit by her playing partner Gertrude Goldberg during a game and sued for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on assumption of risk, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the injury resulted from ordinary risks of golf that the plaintiff assumed by participating.
The court held that the plaintiff's injury was a result of certain obvious and ordinary risks of golfing that she assumed as a member of a golfing foursome with full knowledge of the normal dangers of participating in the sport, thus affirming summary judgment for the defendant.
[1] A plaintiff assumes the ordinary and obvious risks inherent in participating in a sport.
[2] A participant in a sporting event assumes the risk of injury from the normal dangers associated with that sport.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“plaintiff's injury was a result of the certain obvious and ordinary risks of the sport of golfing which she assumed as a member of a golfing foursome with full knowledge of the normal dangers of participating therein”
The court's holding establishing that assumption of risk barred recovery because the plaintiff knew of and voluntarily participated in an activity with inherent dangers
On December 30, 1971, Ruth Rindley was playing golf with Gertrude Goldberg and two others. Goldberg lost her ball, and Rindley (standing on the green)…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assumption Of Risk cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition for rehearing of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and affirming the final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in this negligence action.
The undisputed facts are as follows: Plaintiff-appellant, Ruth Rindley, on December 30, 1971 was playing golf with the defendant-appellee, Gertrude Goldberg, and two other individuals. During the course of the game, defendant lost her ball and began to search for it. Plaintiff, who was standing on the green, advised the defendant of the location of her ball. While plaintiff-appellant looked on, defendant-ap-pellee approached her ball and then hit it up onto the green. This ball struck the plaintiff who at the time was standing about 40 to 50 feet apart from the defendant. Having sustained injury thereby, plaintiff joined by her husband filed the instant action against the defendant for damages. In response thereto, defendant filed an answer alleging therein the affirmative defense of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. Thereafter, defendant-appellee filed a motion for summary judgment which after having heard argument thereon, the trial court granted. Plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing and after oral argument thereon, the trial judge denied the motion. Plaintiff appeals therefrom.
Viewing the above facts in the light most favorable to the party moved against, we conclude therefrom that plaintiff’s injury was a result of the certain obvious and ordinary risks of the sport of golfing which she assumed as a member of a golfing foursome with full knowledge of the normal dangers of participating therein. See 23 Fla.Jur.Negligence § 70 (1959) and cases cited therein.
Accordingly, we hereby affirm the order herein appealed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weedman v. Sunland Roller Rink, Inc., 323 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ave often arisen from participation in games or sport activities. Payne v. City of Clearwater, 1944, 155 Fla. 9, 19 So. 2d 406; Gulf Stream Park Racing Association, Inc. v. Miller, Fla.App.1960, 119 So. 2d 749, and Rindley v. Goldberg, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 140. The defendant urges the application of these cases to the fact situation that we have in the present case, and in this regard, we certainly do not discount the fact that the jury may find that the plaintiff (1) with knowledge and appreciation of th…