California Court of Appeal Holds Golfers Assume Risks Associated with Natural Terrain on Golf Courses

Published Decision Expands Application of Primary Assumption of Risk Doctrine in Golf Injury Cases

The California Court of Appeal issued a published opinion addressing the scope of the primary assumption of risk doctrine in golf-related injury litigation. In Wellsfry v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC, the court held that a golfer injured after stepping on a concealed tree root could not recover damages because the risk arose from the natural terrain and topographical features inherent in playing golf on an outdoor course. The published opinion provides important guidance regarding premises liability claims involving recreational sports facilities and the limits of a property owner's duty to protect participants from risks associated with the sport itself.

Background of the Case

The case arose after the plaintiff suffered injuries while playing golf at Half Moon Bay Golf Links. After hitting a shot from the 14th tee box, the golfer walked through an area commonly used by players traveling between the tee box and their golf carts. He allegedly stepped on a small tree root concealed within the surrounding grass, dirt, and sand, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.

The golfer and his spouse filed suit against the golf course owner, alleging negligence and loss of consortium. They contended that the golf course failed to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by leaving the root in place and failing to warn golfers of its presence.

The golf course moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lawsuit was barred by California's primary assumption of risk doctrine.

The Appeal

On appeal, the central question was whether the risk of encountering a concealed tree root while walking on an outdoor golf course constitutes an inherent risk of the sport of golf.

The plaintiffs argued that stepping on a concealed tree root outside the immediate playing area was not a risk inherent in golf and that reasonable safety measures—such as removing the root or warning golfers—could have been implemented without altering the nature of the sport.

The golf course responded that golfers inherently assume risks associated with the natural terrain of an outdoor course, including uneven ground, slopes, vegetation, roots, and other naturally occurring conditions.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the golf course owner.

The court explained that California's primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to golf and bars liability for injuries arising from risks that are inherent in the sport. While prior California decisions had recognized that being struck by a golf ball is an inherent risk of golf, the court addressed a question that had not previously been resolved in a published California opinion: whether the doctrine also encompasses risks arising from the natural terrain and topographical features of an outdoor golf course.

The court concluded that it does.

According to the court, outdoor golf is played on varied natural terrain that commonly includes slopes, uneven surfaces, vegetation, roots, rocks, sand, and other naturally occurring features. Those conditions are part of the golfing experience and contribute to the challenge and character of the sport. As a result, golfers assume the risks associated with traversing those conditions while playing.

The court further concluded that the golf course owner had not increased the inherent risks of the sport and had not failed to take reasonable measures that could reduce those risks without fundamentally altering the nature of golf. Accordingly, the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred the plaintiffs' claims.

Why This Decision Matters

This published opinion is significant because it expands California case law regarding the primary assumption of risk doctrine and recreational sports injuries.

The decision confirms that the doctrine extends beyond risks directly associated with striking or being struck by a golf ball. It also applies to injuries arising from the natural terrain and environmental conditions golfers encounter while navigating an outdoor course.

The opinion may have broader implications for:

• Golf course liability claims;

• Recreational sports injury litigation;

• Premises liability cases involving sporting venues;

• Summary judgment motions involving assumption of risk defenses; and

• Claims arising from natural or topographical conditions at recreational facilities.

Because the decision was certified for publication, it now serves as precedential authority for California courts evaluating similar claims.

Decker Law’s Involvement

Decker Law represented the plaintiffs and appellants in this published appeal.

Although the Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed the judgment, the case addressed an important unresolved question regarding the scope of California's primary assumption of risk doctrine and the duties owed by owners and operators of recreational facilities. Published appellate decisions frequently shape California law regardless of the outcome for the parties involved, and this opinion provides guidance that courts and litigants will likely continue to rely upon in future sports injury and premises liability cases.

Contact Decker Law

Decker Law represents clients throughout California in appeals, writ proceedings, and complex appellate matters. If you are facing an adverse trial court ruling or need guidance regarding a potential appeal, contact Decker Law to discuss your options.