## Facts

- Defendant Shlansky, age 11, was playing golf at the Harrison Country Club.
- Defendant had taken golf lessons and played golf about two or three times per week during the season for roughly two years.
- Witnesses described defendant as a good golfer for his age, able to play better than some adults.
- Defendant played in a foursome with his mother and two other adults.
- On a par-three hole (about 170 yards), defendant hit a tee shot that struck plaintiff Neumann in the knee.
- Plaintiff had just left the green and was crossing a footbridge about 150–160 yards from the tee when he was hit.
- Defendant testified he saw plaintiff before hitting and there was testimony that he called “fore,” though plaintiff testified he did not hear any warning.
- Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence and obtained a jury verdict.
- The trial court instructed the jury to judge the 11-year-old defendant by the standard of care of an adult golfer.
- After the verdict, defendant moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, arguing the adult-standard instruction was legal error.

## Issues

1. In a negligence action arising from an errant golf shot, should an 11-year-old golfer be held to the standard of care of a reasonable adult golfer rather than the ordinary child standard of care?

## Decision

- The court denied the defendant’s post-trial motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.
- The court held the jury was properly instructed to apply an adult standard of care to the defendant while playing golf.
- The plaintiff’s verdict was allowed to stand.

## Legal Principles

- Golfers owe a duty to use reasonable care to avoid injuring others on the course.
- A golf ball in flight can be a dangerous missile capable of causing serious injury.
- When a minor engages in an activity that calls for adult care and presents a serious risk of harm to others, the minor may be judged by the standard of a reasonable adult performing that activity.
- Evidence that the minor regularly participated in the activity and could competently perform it supports treating the minor as an ordinary participant for purposes of the negligence standard.

## Conclusion

Neumann v. Shlansky upheld a negligence verdict after an 11-year-old’s tee shot struck another golfer, ruling that the jury could evaluate the child’s conduct by the reasonable adult golfer standard because the activity involved a fast-moving projectile capable of serious injury and the defendant had meaningful experience and ability as a golfer.


Neumann v. Shlansky, 294 N.Y.S.2d 628 (1968)