12/10/2013 08:58 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017

New Jersey Redefines Golfers' Tort Liability

By: Steve Silver, Esq., Partner at
This is only a portion of the article. To read the complete article, please CLICK HERE.


We all have that one golfing buddy who can't seem to hit a single straight shot and always requires a baker's dozen worth of mulligans. But thanks to a recent ruling by a New Jersey Superior Court judge, only the golfer hitting the ball is responsible for yelling "fore!" for errant shots.

Last week Judge Thomas Vena of the Essex County Superior Court dismissed claims against two members of a threesome who kept quiet while the third took a mulligan that struck and injured another player.

In Corino v. Duffy, Judge Vena held in his summary judgment ruling that even if the bystanders agreed to allow the mulligan, "it is the state of mind and conduct of the actor that is essential to a finding of recklessness. . . the co-defendants' respective mental states is irrelevant."

Judge Vena's ruling is significant in that it has now clearly defined that the duty to notify bystanders of wild shots does not extend beyond the golfer swinging the club. But just how did Judge Vena arrive at his conclusion?

2013-12-09-sROBERTALLENBYSHOTHITSFANlarge3001.jpg This bizarre case arose from an incident at the Skyview Golf Club in Sparta in August of 2011. According to the Court's summary of the facts, Defendants Bryan Chovanec, Thomas Schweizer, and Kyle Duffy were teeing off on the 16th hole. At the same time, Plaintiff James Corino and his brother, Carl were preparing to take their third shots from the middle of the 15th fairway. At Skyview, the 15th and 16th fairways are parallel to one another, but run in opposite directions. Thus, after a player completes the 15th hole hitting his ball northward, he must essentially reverse directions and tee off southward to begin the 16th. The layout of the 15th and 16th fairways at Skyview makes players standing on the 15th fairway susceptible to errant shots "sliced" from the 16th tee.

According to Mr. Corino, he and his brother allowed Defendants to hit their tee shots from the 16th tee before they resumed their own play on the 15th fairway. Mr. Corino and other witnesses stated that Mr. Duffy and each of his partners already hit one tee shot and Mr. Duffy was the last of the threesome to hit. After seeing Defendants' threesome complete three shots, Mr. Corino prepared to hit his own ball on the 15th fairway. Unbeknownst to Mr. Corino, however, Mr. Duffy took a mulligan from the 16th tee. Mr. Duffy sliced his ball over the sparse tree barrier separating the 15th and 16th fairways, and the golf ball struck Mr. Corino in his right eye. Mr. Corino claims that he did not hear anyone yell "fore" or provide any other warning prior to the ball striking him. The errant shot broke the Plaintiff's sunglasses, and the broken shards of glass severely lacerated his eye.

Plaintiff then sued the entire threesome under the theory that they were all negligent and reckless in both allowing Mr. Duffy to take a mulligan and for not warning bystanders of the errant tee shot.

This is only a portion of the article. To continue reading the complete article, please CLICK HERE.

Managed by active attorneys, is a website dedicated to tackling the toughest sports law issues. Our mission is to frame all aspects of athletics - including but not limited to competition, contracts, agents, media & technology, marketing & sponsorships, franchises & stadiums, economics, communications, and labor relations - in the context of law through a forum that everyone can enjoy and learn.