Sporting Event Participant Owes No Duty of Care to Protect Others From Inherent Risks of the Sport
Cassie E. Pfenning v. Joseph E. Lineman, et al. Indiana Supreme Court No. 27S02-1006-CV-331 May 18, 2011
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21556855 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tonya L Sawyer (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 94 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 55-55 |
| Publication date | 2023-05-04 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0730-3084 • E-ISSN: 2168-3816 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/07303084.2023.2173480 |
| OpenAlex | W4362673213 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
Taking a swing at an issue of first impression, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on a golf ball injury case and rejected the concept that a sporting event participant owes no duty of care to protect others from inherent risks of the sport in all situations. Instead, the five justices had adopted the view that summary judgment is appropriate in those cases where a sports participant is acting within the range of ordinary behavior and whatever injury occurs isn’t because of unreasonable conduct
Duty · Duty of care · Participant observation · Political science · Sociology · Supreme court · Swing · Business Law and Ethics · Doping in Sports · Engineering · Law · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|