## Facts

- Johnny Shin, Jack Ahn, and a third golfer played a recreational round at Rancho Park Golf Course in Los Angeles.
- After finishing the 12th hole, Ahn went to the 13th tee to hit; Shin took a shortcut that placed him in front of the tee box and to Ahn’s left.
- Shin stopped to get water and check his phone while aware he was positioned in front of a golfer preparing to swing and that doing so was unsafe.
- Ahn hit a tee shot that sliced right and struck Shin in the temple, causing severe injuries, including skull fracture and brain injury.
- The parties disputed whether Ahn warned (“fore”), whether Shin had time to move, and whether hitting while Shin was forward/left conformed to ordinary golf conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to golf such that being struck by a carelessly hit ball is an inherent risk and coparticipants owe only a limited duty.
2. Whether disputed facts regarding Ahn’s conduct and warning precluded summary judgment under the limited-duty (recklessness/intent) standard.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that primary assumption of risk applies to golf and that being struck by a carelessly hit ball is an inherent risk of the sport.
- The Court held golfers owe coparticipants a limited duty: to refrain from intentional injury or conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the ordinary activity involved in golf.
- The Court ruled summary judgment for Ahn was improper because material factual disputes existed on whether Ahn’s decision to hit and any failure to warn could be found reckless under that standard.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal and left in place the trial court’s order denying Ahn’s motion for summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under primary assumption of risk, a sports participant generally has no duty to eliminate risks inherent in the sport.
- A participant does have a duty not to increase inherent risks; liability requires intentional misconduct or recklessness totally outside ordinary sport activity.
- The duty inquiry in sports-tort cases focuses on the sport’s inherent risks and the role of the defendant’s conduct in increasing those risks, not ordinary negligence.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where disputed material facts affect whether the defendant’s conduct could meet the recklessness/intent threshold.

## Conclusion

Golf falls within primary assumption of risk: players accept the inherent risk of being hit by an errant, carelessly struck ball, but a golfer may still be liable if a factfinder concludes the golfer acted intentionally or with recklessness outside ordinary play; here, factual disputes required denial of summary judgment.


Shin v. Ahn, 42 Cal. 4th 482, 165 P.3d 581 (Cal. 2007)