December 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 32

(1) [P]laintiff jogged through the
golf course between two clearly visible
greens, which was not a hidden
peril that required a warning or
protective barrier; (2) the risk was
ordinary; and (3) it was not reasonably
foreseeable that a golfer would
hit a ball so far to the right that a
non-golfer would be injured.
Jury Verdict
The trial court granted City Park's
motion for
summary judgment.
The court of appeal, however, reversed
the trial court and remanded
the case for further proceedings
for a jury to consider " issues of
material fact relating to City Park's
duty. " After a trial on the merits,
the jury found City Park negligent
and awarded judgment in favor of
Plaintiff for $75,000.
The jury assessed City Park with 40
percent attributed fault and 60 percent
comparative fault to Plaintiff. After
medical expenses were reduced, the
trial court entered a judgment against
City Park for $56,680.82. The appeals
court affirmed the trial court and held
the following:
City Park owed a duty to a
" passer-by not playing golf and
not on the golf course " to exercise
reasonable and ordinary care to
keep the premises reasonably safe
and take reasonable precautions,
such as: placing warning signs,
posting barriers between the golf
tee and the road, configuring the
course differently, or closing Palm
Drive to pedestrians and bicycle
traffic near the golf course.
Appeals Court Dissent
A dissenting judge on the appeals
court found " City Park did not
breach its duty to protect the [P]laintiff,
but instead, acted reasonably to
protect the public from any foreseeable
injury. " Moreover, this dissenting
judge noted Plaintiff " lived
near City Park for many years, had
jogged along this very path on numerous
occasions and was aware
that the path on which he was jogging
traversed a golf course. " While
Plaintiff conceded at trial that " he
saw golfers as he was jogging, " he
testified he failed to see the signs indicating
this was a golf course; i.e.,
" Golf Cart Crossing. "
In the opinion of the dissenting
judge, " the trial court erred in finding
City Park liable for [P]laintiff's
liability. " Moreover, the dissenting
judge found the " suggestions of
preventive measures " by the appeals
court " went beyond what is
reasonable to protect against such a
remote possibility of harm. "
State Supreme Court
On appeal, the state supreme court
noted the legal duty of a governmental
agency or municipality operating
a public park is as follows:
[K]eep the premises in a reasonably
safe condition for those using
the park and to discover any unreasonably
dangerous conditions on the
premises and to either correct the conditions
or warn of the danger....
In furtherance of such, the operator
should furnish equipment
and services to prevent injury from
conditions which foreseeably may
cause injury. However, the operator
is not the insurer of its patron's
safety, but is liable only for injuries
resulting from its negligence.
Duty-Risk Analysis
In determining " whether City Park
had a duty to protect a non-golfer
against injury from being struck by
a golf ball, " the state supreme court
noted Louisiana had adopted a " dutyrisk
analysis " for liability on the part
of a public body. Under the applicable
" duty-risk analysis, " the state supreme
court would require Plaintiff to satisfy
the following requisites to prove
liability for negligence:
(1) the conduct in question was
a cause-in-fact of the resulting
harm, (2) the defendant owed a
duty of care to the plaintiff, (3) the
defendant breached that requisite
duty and (4) the risk of harm was
within the scope of protection afforded
by the duty breached.
If the plaintiff fails to prove any
one of the elements, the defendant
is not liable.
Obvious Risk
Accordingly, the state supreme court
would decide " whether City Park presented
an unreasonable risk of harm
Special Product Preview
NEWSolar Light
Option
INNOVATION
FOR A
SAFER
DRINKING
EXPERIENCE
www.sternwilliams.com
800-323-2359
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | DECEMBER 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
33
http://www.sternwilliams.com
December 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of December 2023 - Parks & Recreation
