## Facts

- T’s, Inc. operated Smiley’s Golf Complex, which had a policy requiring the manager to monitor weather (including radar and visual checks) and warn golfers to leave the course when storms threatened, using an air horn to signal closure.
- On June 14, 2001, the course closed due to severe weather and later reopened when the afternoon manager believed storms had moved out based on clearing skies and radar images.
- Minor plaintiff Patrick Sall and a friend chose to play after the reopening; Patrick’s mother expressed concern, and Patrick stated they would not be open if it were unsafe.
- The golfers knew of, and relied on, the course’s air-horn warning practice to alert them to dangerous lightning conditions.
- As storms returned, the manager monitored radar and eventually sounded the air horn to clear the course.
- About two minutes after the horn sounded, lightning struck on the course and seriously injured Patrick while he and his friend were leaving.
- The Salls sued for negligence, alleging the course voluntarily undertook a duty to monitor weather and warn patrons, and negligently performed that undertaking.

## Issues

1. Whether the golf course owed a duty under general premises-liability principles to protect or warn patrons regarding lightning strikes.
2. Whether the course voluntarily undertook a duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 to monitor weather and warn patrons, and whether the record presented triable issues as to negligent performance of that duty.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper where disputed facts and competing inferences existed, and whether the appellate court improperly resolved factual inferences against the nonmovant.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for T’s, Inc. and reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held the record could support applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 because the course undertook weather monitoring and warnings designed for patron safety and patrons presented evidence of reliance.
- The court held genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the course negligently performed the assumed duty (including timing of monitoring, reopening, and the warning relative to the strike).
- The case was remanded for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmovant.
- Negligence requires duty, breach, injury, and causation; duty is a question of law, while breach is generally a question of fact.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, one who undertakes to render services necessary for another’s protection may be liable for physical harm caused by negligent performance of that undertaking.
- At the summary-judgment stage, the key § 323 inquiry is whether the record contains facts warranting application of the undertaking doctrine; whether the undertaking was performed negligently is typically for the factfinder when reasonable inferences conflict.
- An appellate court reviewing summary judgment may not engage in factfinding or weigh competing inferences.

## Conclusion

Because evidence supported that the golf course undertook to monitor weather and warn patrons for their safety and because reasonable factfinders could differ on whether the undertaking was performed with reasonable care, the negligence claims could not be resolved as a matter of law, and the case proceeded to trial.


Sall ex rel. Sall v. T’s, Inc., 281 Kan. 1355, 136 P.3d 471 (Kan. 2006)