It is never a good idea to expect any kind of consistency in the application of rulings by your State Supreme Court but in this case they did and I have to wonder what the broader applications could be?
The New Hampshire State Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit in which a golfer sued a golf course because he got hit in the eye by his own shot (off a yard marker).
Dan Tuohy, correspondent for the Union Leader reports today that Paul F. Sanchez does not have a case against Candia Woods Golf Course, which is mundane until you read the language used by the court to explain its dismissal.
Associate Justice Carol Ann Conboy (with other Justices concurring)
"Candida Woods had no duty to protect Sanchez against the risk that he assumed as a golfer."
“Both obstacles and errant balls are known risks of the game of golf,”
“We agree with the trial court that the ‘clearly visible yard markers are a known hazard of the game of golf’ …
"The risk of his shot ricocheting off the marker was one he assumed, and one against which the defendant had no duty to protect him.”
"Candia Woods owed no duty to protect Sanchez against his voluntary encounter with the risk"
So what the State Supreme Court seems to be saying is that Sanchez was responsible for his own behavior, given the known risks of the activity. This kind of thinking should have wide reaching implications for society as a whole. Though I suspect one might argue that golf does not present a significant risk to taxpayers–until said injury is covered by a taxpayer funded health insurance program. But at that point, what behavior does not present a risk to taxpayers?
This is the piece of the regulated health care problem that democrats are either ignoring, or have intentionally embraced. If the former, they are propagandized fools who have been duped into sacrificing every possible personal freedom to the government by allowing it to tie every human behavior to some form of federal expenditures and by extension federal regulation. If the latter, they are evil.
But if a golf course is not to be held financially responsible for the voluntary activity of a golfer who chooses to play there, why must we finance the voluntary activity (or inactivity) of anyone else, just because they happen to be in America?
That’s a landmark ruling.
