The court emphasized, we prefer to resolve the issues in this case by merely determining whether the risks were inherent in the sport. Id. He minimizes their relationship, arguing that he simply picked his granddaughter up to spend the afternoon with him at the golf tournament. Appellee Estate of Jerry A. Jones's Br. In 2015, Scottsdale placed 16 signs at 11 locations along sections of the city path adjacent to several golf courses, including seven signs along Continental Golf Course that read "Stray golf ball area,"according to Thompson's report. Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120, 1123 (Ind.2010). WebDid you catch that story in Sunday's NYT about errant golf shots and the law? The liability depends, however, on the circumstances of each case. A person who enters another person's property without permission is trespassing. Three large lawsuit categories emerged: On Course, Off Course, and Course Premises. Golf Australia launches 'TeeMates' in conjunction with Youth on Course The plaintiff notes that the designated materials show that she had never played golf before and had no interest in it, that she did not know any golf safety or etiquette rules, and that she had been to a golf course only once before when she was six or seven years old. While declining to follow prior cases employing a primary assumption of risk analysis, the court focused on the public policy and foreseeability components of the Webb balancing test. As to public policy, the plaintiff urges that permitting negligence claims by persons not players or ticketed spectators would create a bright-line approach that would be convenient to administer, that Whitey's and the Elks have a better capacity to bear any loss and prevent future injuries, and that adults who organize and run golf events should be discouraged from putting unsupervised minors on a beverage cart without instructions on safety or golf etiquette. In the case at the Ryder Cup, Frenchwomen Corine Remande later threatened to seek legal redress from the tournament organisers, claiming they failed in their duty of care to spectators in the gallery. See also Graven v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 909 P.2d 514 (Colo.1995) (notwithstanding state skiing statute abolishing duty for inherent dangers and risks of skiing, finds reduced duty not applicable where skier's injuries resulted from dangerous unmarked conditions). Whether it was equipped with a roof is disputed. ;[pc\@GOB'H SP]Bt8 7 G}IA}@pxvD WebDamage by Errant Golf Balls. Although this Court has not addressed the issue, several decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals, invoking varying and inconsistent rationales, have concluded that participants in athletic events owe no duty of care as to risks inherent in the sport and must refrain only from intentional or reckless infliction of injury to others. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 441, 502 N.E.2d 964, 970, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 55 (1986) (in case of injuries to jockey, adopts no-duty rule predicated on primary assumption of risk and participant's implied consent to the usual incidents of competition resulting from carelessness, particularly those which result from the customarily accepted method of playing the sport). Motion for Summary Judgment by the Grandfather. First, the myriad of factors that relate to the effectiveness of such a warning at any particular time will almost inevitably call for speculation and surmise, precluding the establishment of the element of proximate cause necessary for liability. So he sped up to get down the path faster. The relevant facts presented in the designated evidence are mostly undisputed. To Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462, 466 (Ind.2003). After making several trips around the 18hole golf course, the plaintiff was suddenly struck in the mouth by a golf ball while driving the beverage cart on the cart path approaching the eighteenth hole's tee pad from its green. While the subjective test is essential in assessing the defense of incurred risk, Beckett v. Clinton Prairie Sch. Summary judgment was correctly entered in favor of Whitey's on the plaintiff's claim for premises liability. A landowner owes to an invitee or social guest a duty to exercise reasonable care for his protection while he is on the landowner's premises. Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind.1991). He points to the Ken McDonald course in Tempe, which has fence that encircles the walking path next to the course. Corp., 504 N.E.2d 552, 555 (Ind.1987), for the purpose of our premises liability jurisprudence, the issue here is not what risk the plaintiff subjectively incurred but whether the Elks objectively should have expected that the plaintiff would be oblivious to the danger or fail to protect herself from it. Allen v. Dover CoRecreational Softball League, 148 N.H. 407, 41920, 807 A.2d 1274, 128586 (2002) (finding that defendants had a duty to not create an unreasonable risk of injury, that is, not to act in an unreasonable manner that would increase or create a risk of injury outside the range of risks, and that an inaccurate throw that strikes a base runner was within the ordinary range of activity involved in playing softball which, even if negligent, cannot as a matter of law constitute unreasonable conduct under the circumstances); Estes v. Tripson, 188 Ariz. 93, 9596, 932 P.2d 1364, 136667 (Ariz.Ct.App.1997) (rejecting reformulating assumption of risk as a no-duty rule where state constitution declares assumption of risk is a question of fact that shall be left to the jury, but holding a base runner who collided with a catcher did not increase the inherent risks faced by catcher and thus there is no breach of duty as a matter of law). Buffer zones are one solution golf managers could employ to prevent injuries caused by errant shots. The focus on duty arises from its role as one of the essential elements of a negligence action. Because every sport has its own inherent risks due to elements such as rules, equipment, physical demands, and number of participants, buffer zones are not a one-size-fits all solution used to mitigate participant injury. Breach of duty usually involves an evaluation of reasonableness and thus is usually a question to be determined by the finder of fact in negligence cases. who is liable? not sought. "A fence would be no more than six feet high. Golf industry report [PDF document]. _^6!FE@I@\CRwl?"".>>6sC&vY5Sqv+qORw9fs?\U4 0,U%p4Dio.-)0ankE|*=7o,w3p*jt*$lx|S6KMB+2=pL;-1\lh" ~# ~K5%K/7TSoAZEW~ ~' ~/]51"ytREuN21;xQ\[Y;xE^9x)8xogA=5W|=5_xk9zwOq,_3t=yy|:zv|5~}/>}slT8pRoC~L$b R endstream endobj 58 0 obj <>stream Our replacement formulation (finding no breach by an athlete engaged in the sport's ordinary activities) applies to conduct of sports participants, not promoters of sporting events, and thus does not insulate Whitey's from potential liability. Ollier was hit in the head by a stray shot and suffered serious permanent brain damage. Read on to learn more! We reverse the summary judgment granted to Whitey's 31 Club, Inc. and to the estate of the grandfather, Jerry A. Jones. 2. Based on this distinction, the Gyuriak court concluded that a participant in a sporting activity assumes the risk of dangers inherent in the activity such that the participant is owed no legal duty with regard to those inherent risks, and declared that this view does not conflict with the Comparative Fault Act. Id. In California Law, if I pull a golf ball on a golf course and it bounces off a tree and breaks the window of a house adjoining a golf course, who pays for the cost of the window? Under Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, a plaintiff's recovery will be diminished or precluded depending upon the degree of the plaintiff's own fault. As to public policy, the Bowman court emphasized the desirability of affording enhanced protection against liability to co-participants in sports events who are not in a position, practically speaking, to protect themselves from claims. Id. After the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of each of the four defendants, the plaintiff appealed, claiming that genuine issues exist to preclude summary judgment on her various claims of general negligence, negligent supervision, and premises liability of the defendants. Athletic activity by its nature involves strenuous and often inexact and imprecise physical activity that may somewhat increase the normal risks attendant to the activities of ordinary life outside the sports arena, but this does not render unreasonable the ordinary conduct involved in such sporting activities. Considering whether the injury-causing event was an inherent or reasonably foreseeable part of the game under an objective standard, the court found no duty as a matter of law. Purdy v. Wright Tree Serv., Inc., 835 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. More specifically, how are golf course managers protecting players from injury due to errant shots during regular play? Incurred risk, even when characterized as objectively-assessed primary assumption of risk, cannot be a basis to find the absence of duty on the part of the alleged tortfeasor. Only then does the burden fall upon the non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Outcalt v. Wardlaw, 750 N.E.2d 859, 862 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. The plaintiff's presence on the golf course resulted from the actions of her grandfather who had signed up at Whitey's to work as a volunteer beverage cart driver for the Whitey's 31 Club Scramble. Regardless the course type or organizational structure, relying on transferring risk through most insurance policies is not enough protection. A plaintiff seeking damages for negligence must establish (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, (2) a breach of the duty, and (3) an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty. not sought; Vetor by Weesner v. Vetor, 634 N.E.2d 513, 515 (Ind.Ct .App.1994), trans. A Westlaw search provided the data for this research, and after removing irrelevant cases 133 were within the scope of this study, 85 of which included incidents that could have been prevented had proper buffer zones been in place. However, other design strategies can be implemented to manage the risks associated with errant golf shots. This is pretty standard as the majority of courses do state that but wanted to pass that on as well. Second, we find that a golfer's yelling fore or failure to do so, and the manner of doing so, is within the range of ordinary behavior of golfers, and that, as a matter of law, neither the manner of doing so nor the failure to do so constitutes a breach sufficient to support a claim for negligence. See Heck, 659 N.E.2d at 505; Smith, 796 N.E.2d at 245. And while the deposition of the Elks's representative stated that roofs and windshields are used to shelter cart occupants from inclement weather, an assertion the plaintiff does not dispute, there are no facts that obviate the possibility that such equipment may also serve other safety functions and might have operated here to shield the plaintiff or deflect the errant drive. A golf manager may discount errant shots because he believes someone assumes the risk of being struck by a golf ball when on or near a golf course. Most golf ball injuries preventable by buffer zones occurred on the golf course between players in different groups on different holes, and the majority of injuries were to the head. We find no genuine issue of fact to contravene the objectively reasonable expectation by the Elks that persons present on its golf course would realize the risk of being struck by an errant golf ball and take appropriate precautions. As noted above, the sports participant engages in physical activity that is often inexact and imprecise and done in close proximity to others, thus creating an enhanced possibility of injury to others. H\0y Educating golfers to yell "fore" when they hit an errant shot that might possibly cause an injury. Approximately 881 people 617 cyclistsand 264 pedestriansused the path in one eight-hour period, according to the most recent pedestrian and cyclist count conducted by the city. In seeking summary judgment, Whitey's asserted that the undisputed facts establish that it was not subject to premises liability because it did not own, control, or have any interest in the Elks golf course and that it otherwise owed no duty to the plaintiff. The complaint contained actions for intentional trespass and intentional private nuisance based on errant golf balls hit onto their property from defendants' adjacent golf course. not sought. A golf course was sued in 40 of the 133 total cases, and 32 of the 85 buffer zone-preventable cases in the final dataset. The blanket protection from liability embodied in the new formulation does not extend to persons or entities other than the athlete whose conduct allegedly caused a claimed injury. Berit Heyer-Boyd, who lives next to the greenbelt, said she alsowas injured by a golf ball along the pathbut never contacted the city about the injury. The fact that Whitey's arranged for the advance promotion and sign-up of golfers for the event, or that the grandfather, as a volunteer for Whitey's, selected the particular beverage cart used by the plaintiff, does not establish that Whitey's was a possessor of the golf course so as to subject it to premises liability. Co. v. Magwerks Corp., 829 N.E.2d 968, 975 (Ind.2005). at 996 (quoting with approval from Geiersbach v. Frieje, 807 N.E .2d 114, 119 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. WebPeriodically (but very infrequently) an errant golf ball strikes my house. )-o)juhtYDw"4e(l+Bm' h;0]dsR`sw, A third rationale for finding no duty is seen in Gyuriak. This approach is akin to that taken by the Arizona courts in Estes when faced with the Arizona Constitution's explicit declaration that assumption of risk is a question of fact that shall be left to the jury.2 188 Ariz. at 96, 932 P.2d at 1367. The general nature of the conduct reasonable and appropriate for a participant in a particular sporting activity is usually commonly understood and subject to ascertainment as a matter of law. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. One year after Gyuriak, however, we reasserted our approval of Heck and stated that [u]nder the Comparative Fault Act, a lack of duty may not arise from a plaintiff's incurred risk, unless by an express consent. Smith, 796 N.E.2d at 245. 54 0 obj <> endobj 101 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<7E2B5306888D4826B28E77209CE7C1F0><3F6D02F5D51549F0A8DE82E51E66630E>]/Index[54 91]/Info 53 0 R/Length 185/Prev 308727/Root 55 0 R/Size 145/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream Regardless the strategy, placing a buffer in the correct location is essential. In separate but parallel rulings, the trial court granted each defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact, but otherwise not detailing any analysis or reasoning. The fact is that the law regarding liability for property damage caused by errant golf balls is hazy at best. The law varies from state to state and often on a case by case basis. Some courts believe that the golfer is always responsible for any damage he/she causes to personal property while golfing. Fences are also another option but arent always practical financially and aesthetically. With that fresh in mind, many may now wonder, what is the situation with regard to liability when someone has caused an injury on or around the golf course? We find that the facts do not preclude the existence of a duty on the grandfather to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of the plaintiff. Under the [Comparative Fault] Act, a plaintiff may relieve a defendant of what would otherwise be his or her duty to the plaintiff only by an express consent. at 11. Thus, for the Elks to obtain summary judgment, the designated evidence must demonstrate that one of these elements of premises liability is not satisfied. Because the plaintiff's liability claims against the Elks are predicated on its actions as landowner and operator of the golf course, these requirements apply to all of her claims against the Elks. Whitey's sought summary judgment, alleging that it was not subject to premises liability and did not otherwise owe any duty to the plaintiff. As in our discussion with respect to Whitey's, we also consider whether the designated evidence forecloses the plaintiff's claim against her grandfather on grounds that he did not breach such duty of reasonable care or that there is an absence of proximate cause. Aldrich said. WebDid you catch that story in Sunday's NYT about errant golf shots and the law? Our premium range of golf insurance products aims to offer total golfing peace of mind whether you are looking for golf insurance for your golf equipment, insurance cover for your buggy, or that all-important course third-party liability protection, GBA has got you covered! We affirm summary judgment in favor of the golfer, Joseph E. Lineman, and the Marion Elks Country Club Lodge # 195. Cases in several states employ the primary assumption of risk rationale for their no-duty rule. In order to be clear of any legal action, golfers who hit errant shots must not be negligent, reckless, or acting with intent according to Trantolo & Trantolo law . Today Kimberly lives in Southern California near her104-year-old grandmother, widowed mother, a mentally disabled sister and secondsister who is also a breast cancer survivor. Webhow to get avengers weapons in fortnite creative code. Wild says six-to-seven errant golf balls land on her property a week and as many as six land there on warm days sometimes damaging her home and area vehicles. Thank you. To understand the liability of the club we need to know about the Occupiers Liability Act. But we agree with the Court of Appeals in permitting liability when an athlete intentionally causes injury or engages in reckless conduct. Your comprehensive deductible will apply. Because this Court has not previously addressed the issue of a sports participant's liability to others, we granted transfer and now affirm summary judgment in favor of the golfer and the Elks but reverse summary judgment as to Whitey's and the grandfather. Within the recreational golf sector, buffer zone standards do not exist nor is there a governing body designated to create and recommend safety standards. See Lestina v. West Bend Mut. Many courses and near-by buildings do have insurance in place to cover it, so check that as well if the issue cannot be resolved. Fore! The golfer, Joseph Lineman, sought summary judgment on grounds that he could not be held liable under a negligence theory because the plaintiff was a co-participant in the sporting event, and her injuries resulted from an inherent risk of the sport. As to judicial policy, however, we are in agreement with our colleagues in the Court of Appeals and many of the courts of our fellow states that strong public policy considerations favor the encouragement of participation in athletic activities and the discouragement of excessive litigation of claims by persons who suffer injuries from participants' conduct. If you need legal help with in a no-fault car accident, speak with our knowledgable car accident lawyers in Mesa today. Depending on the circumstances, buffer zones may remedy design flaws or create reasonably safe conditions to avoid damages that lead to litigation. This poses a problem as golf courses in the recreational sector serve a wide range of customers in terms of age, skill level, and experience. WebIf the home is not part of the community (i.e., you really pull the ball and it lands outside of the development, then you are liable to the homeowner for the property damage. hnE( >n4bvelO,u&Dp8iHirr}}TYpWxB; This means that golf clubs must warn, or make golfers aware of, foreseeable dangers of which they might otherwise be unaware. However, since the homeowner bought the Every course has a chance of being sued, but proper buffer zones are a preventative risk management strategy that can mitigate participant injury and lower liability before an incident even occurs. Anyone who watches professional golf regularly has seen a spectator get hit by an errant shot, and most avid golfers have experienced the panic of almost being struck by a golf ball. Golf clubs, players, and event tournament organisers can insure themselves against claims for negligence by taking out public liability insurance. JOB: Pro Shop Attendant Twin Waters Golf Club We reject this primary assumption-of-risk terminology to the extent that it suggests that a lack of duty may stem from a plaintiff's incurred risk. These concepts focus on a plaintiff's venturousness and require a subjective determination. We disagree. Leading Sports Management and Sports Law Programs, https://asgca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Building-a-Practical-Golf-Facility.pdf, https://mydrted.com/faq/sue-golf-course-for-injuries-by-errant-golf-balls/, https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/, Philadelphia Eagles Lose Workers Compensation Appeal in Pivotal Case, Florida Institute of Technology Ordered to Reinstate Mens Rowing After Title IX Complaint, Appellate Court Strikes Arbitration Decision Secured as a Result of Sports Agents Fraud, Judge Dismisses Upstart Companys Antitrust Claim against World Wrestling Entertainment, Former Coaches Get Mixed Ruling from Court in Lawsuit Against Highland Community College, MLBs Apple TV+ Arrangement Highlights Subscription Legal Compliance Obligations, Stormy Times at St. Johns University as it Terminates its Head Mens Basketball Coach for Cause, Labor Relations in Sports Has Become Boring; Thats a Good Thing, Assessing Minor Leaguers Union Status and What It Means for Americas Pastime, Education Department Proposes New Title IX Regulations for Transgender Student-Athletes, The NFL, the Raiders, and A Law Firm: A Tale of Two Colors, Activision Blizzard: Once Again in Hot Water, The Cultural Intersection of Sports and Fashion, Study Could Change Assumptions About Helmet Safety, As Legal Action Brews, AFL Releases Updated Concussion Guidelines and Strategic Plan, Sunkin, Anderson Chosen to Lead Sheppard Mullins Sports Industry Group. not sought (plaintiff golfer injured when struck by club of another golfer taking practice swing); Gyuriak v. Millice, 775 N.E.2d 391 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. American Society of Golf Course Architects. Breslau continues to push back at criticisms that afence would be unsightly and ruin the beauty of the course. WebThe same standard would also apply if an errant shot caused a ball to cross a road near a golf course and either hit a passing vehicle or injure a pedestrian. "However, the risk does exist.". We view the evaluation of such inherent risks to be tantamount to an objective consideration of the risk of harm that a plaintiff undertakes and thus unsatisfactory because it violates the Comparative Fault Act and the precedent of this Court. New York derives its no-duty rule using both primary assumption of risk and the idea that a plaintiff, in becoming a participant in the sporting activity, has impliedly consented to the reasonably foreseeable attendant risks. Because the undisputed facts shown in the materials designated on summary judgment fail to conclusively establish a lack of duty on the part of Whitey's or the absence of a breach of duty or proximate cause, Whitey's is not entitled to summary judgment. Trees are regarded as good safety buffers that provide shade and aesthetic value (Hurdzan, 2005, p. 9), but attracted animals and insects must be considered. Because there exist insufficient undisputed facts as to issues of relationship and foreseeability, we find that the designated summary judgment materials are insufficient to establish the absence of any duty on the part of Whitey's. https://seniornews.com/errant-golf-ball-damage-who-is-liable The law varies from state to state and often on a case by case basis. To support his motion for summary judgment, the grandfather asserted to the trial court that the designated materials establish that he did not have a legal duty to warn his granddaughter about the inherent risks of driving the beverage cart during the golf event. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. denied, where the court affirmed summary judgment for a golf course in an action by a golfer struck by an errant drive from an adjoining tee. The owner of the golf course denied liability on the basis that the golf course had been in existence before the home was constructed; a person who buys a home in or near a golf course should expect a few errant golf balls; and that, in any event, responsibility for those errant balls and any damage they may cause is that of the golfer The plaintiff's action against the golfer is also predicated upon her claims that he hit an errant drive when he knew of the presence of bystanders on the golf course and that he failed to yell fore in a manner sufficient to enable her to avoid being struck. The term also includes unreasonable assumption of risk not constituting an enforceable express consent, incurred risk, and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages. Ind.Code 346245(b). We conclude that sound judicial policy can be achieved within the framework of existing Indiana statutory law and jurisprudence. "What happens when another person or child is hit at some time in the future on our Scottsdale greenbelt?". The stretch of greenbelt between Thomas and Indian School roads sits directly next to the course, with no netting or barrier. To articulate the contours of this duty, we have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts 343 (1965): A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he, (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and, (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and. As to the issue of breach of duty, whether it was reasonable for him to subject her to such risks depends upon genuine issues of fact for determination at trial. The plaintiff claims that the breach of duty by Whitey's may be established by facts showing the failure to inform her of the usual safety instructions; the placement of her on a golf cart under dangerous conditions and in a windowless, roofless cart with an inadequately-trained employee; and the selection of the sixteen-year-old plaintiff to drive a beverage cart serving alcoholic beverages. In at least one other case, a reduced duty rule is predicated on the plaintiff's implied consent to the risk. "With new gear that enables average golfers to hit a ball 250 yards, and with golf communities Shortly after the plaintiff and her grandfather arrived at the event, he retrieved a gasoline motor powered beverage cart for their use. If the duty and these three elements are established, then negligence is established. In other words, a club has no more right to permit shots to encroach on anothers property, as a homeowner would have to host a block party on the clubs fairway. (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. Providing reasonable distances between golfers andsurrounding environments. Such fault includes any act or omission that is negligent, willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional toward the person or property of others. WebWhen the Probability of Loss times the Damage is greater than the burden of preventing the loss, a court may find the owner negligent. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Golf Surprize League supporting Cancer Council Outback Queensland Masters takes out gold at the Grey Nomad Awards, Greenspace Management to open Freeway Golf Course after course renovation, New Syngenta study: 16.1 million social media posts reveal golfs great divide, Australian Golf Foundation releases inaugural Impact Report, Topgolf to Become Global Medaled Event in Special Olympics, Bolstered Air Links Key to Helping Golf Tourism Soar in Central Vietnam, New Book Release: Terroir of Golf - A Golf Book For Wine Lovers, PODCAST: Yardage Book Yarns Mike Orloff. errant golf ball damage law florida. National Golf Foundation (2019). Her father battled ALS, Lou Gehrigs disease and she was a primary caregiver. Who is Liable if a Golf Ball Causes Damage? Pub. WebA few laws consider the golfer is liable for golf ball damage because they are the one who causes harm to other peoples property. In these cases, both the golfer and the homeowner may escape liability, even if the courses posted rules stating they are not liable for damages. The trend in Washington seems to be favoring homeowners, making golfers responsible for property damage their unlucky slices might cause. The Bradshaw Firm, PLC is located in Mesa, AZ and serves clients in and around Higley, Gilbert, Queen Creek, Mesa and Chandler. An appellate court reviewing summary judgment analyzes the issues in the same way as would atrial court. The elements of premises liability discussed in Lincke are well established. By Posted when did harry styles dad passed away In mckayla adkins house The city manager's report also says that erecting a barrier may result in an insufficient shoulder for pedestrians, and that the city must take into considerationthe maintenance of open space along the Indian Bend Wash Greenbelt. But within about ten minutes, the great aunt also joined another group of golfers, and an employee of Whitey's, Christie Edwards, joined the plaintiff and was present with her on the beverage cart during the event.
errant golf ball damage law arizona
errant golf ball damage law arizona
errant golf ball damage law arizona