On April 15, the New York Court of Appeals heard two very different golf cases and reached two very different conclusions, making key distinctions about when the assumption of risk doctrine applies to golf courses. In Katleski v. Cazenovia, the plaintiff was struck in the eye by an errant tee shot that was hit from the third hole's tee box and veered onto the adjacent seventh fairway, where the plaintiff was located. The driver of the golf ball had intended to hit it straight on the fairway, of course, but as this writer knows all too well, the ball does not always comply. 

The plaintiff argued, quite creatively, that he knew and understood the risks inherent to golf, but that based upon his expert's conclusion, the course was so designed to create an added inherent risk as the adjacent fairway was built extremely close by, and a new box designed that from where the ball was struck made it hard to see the next fairway. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's case, upholding the assumption of the risk doctrine. In a decision that reviews several seminal cases discussing the design of venue, some of which do not uphold the assumption of the risk doctrine, the Court addresses the important distinction when examining the design of the course. It is not whether the design creates a danger, but rather, whether it unreasonably enhances the risk from what is customary in the sport.

In contrast, in Galante v. Robert G. Karlis, the injury did not stem from an errant tee shot. The plaintiff in Galante was injured when she drove her golf cart to pick up her clubs from her car and was struck by a vehicle and thrown from the cart. While the theory against the golf course was also against the design, the Court made it clear that the assumption of risk does not apply to those "injured while traversing streets and sidewalks," as this "would create an unwarranted diminution of the general duty of landowners."

Unlike the tee shot in Katleski, the Court would not depart from its general rule that the assumption of risk applies even if the design of a golf course enhanced the risk of injury, so long as the design was customary for the sport. However, the protection afforded by the assumption of the risk would not apply to injuries sustained on sidewalks or in parking lots, as those do not involve the sport.