Opinion
Index No. SC-000937-22/HE
10-12-2022
Jefferson Rafael Mena, Plaintiff, v. Brendan Burke, Defendant.
Jefferson Rafael Mena, Plaintiff Pro Se Brendan Burke, Defendant Pro Se
Unpublished Opinion
Jefferson Rafael Mena, Plaintiff Pro Se
Brendan Burke, Defendant Pro Se
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
HON. JACLENE AGAZARIAN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Plaintiff in this Small Claims case seeks to recover the sum of $987.95 from the Defendant. Plaintiff, a driver traveling on a public road adjacent to a golf course, claims that Defendant struck a golf ball that hit his windshield and caused damage. A non-jury trial was held on September 30, 2022. The Court heard testimony from two witnesses, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Because the Plaintiff did not actually observe the Defendant strike the golf ball, he could offer no testimony or evidence regarding the manner in which Defendant struck the ball or his behavior in relation thereto. The question before the Court is whether the Defendant can nonetheless be found liable if it is his actions that caused damage to Plaintiff. According to longstanding legal precedent, he cannot.
THE FACTS
On April 17, 2022, at approximately 12:53 p.m., the Plaintiff was driving his automobile on Salisbury Park Drive, East Meadow, with his wife as passenger when the front windshield was struck with a golf ball. The video surveillance taken by his automobile captured an image of the golf ball approaching the windshield just before impact.
Following the impact, Plaintiff and his wife stopped and exited the vehicle before approaching the fence bordering the golf course and Salisbury Park Drive. Defendant was observed on the golf course walking towards the fence when he was "waved down" by Plaintiff's wife. The Defendant approached the fence, at which time Plaintiff and his wife advised Defendant that his golf ball had hit their vehicle.
This is where the parties' testimony differs. The Plaintiff testified that the Defendant proceeded to apologize, assuming responsibility for the golf ball. The Defendant testified that he apologized only that this happened to Plaintiff and that he never admitted responsibility. A conversation was had between the parties at which time Defendant suggested that Plaintiff go to the front desk and speak to the golf course operators about having their insurance pay for the damage. He also provided Plaintiff with his telephone number.
The Defendant testified that immediately after this encounter with Plaintiff he walked back towards his brothers with whom he was golfing to tell them what happened before returning to the fence to look for his ball. He testified that upon his return he found the ball next to a tree, a Titleist golf ball, within the golf course confines. Upon inquiry from the Court, the Plaintiff testified that he did not know the type of golf ball that hit his windshield because when he exited his vehicle after the impact he observed several golf balls scattered around the area.
The Plaintiff testified that immediately after the encounter with Defendant he sought the assistance from the front desk but was told that any damage to his vehicle was the responsibility of the golfer. He testified that he called Defendant that day, and in the following days, before Defendant blocked his number.
The Plaintiff offered an invoice from the Tesla Service Department dated May 18, 2022, marked "Paid," showing a total cost of $987.50 to remove and replace the front windshield. He also provided the Court with evidence that a report had been made with the Nassau County Police Department for property damage on April 17, 2022, at the subject location.
DISCUSSION
As a small claims case, the Plaintiff need not specify the legal theory upon which he is seeking damages for relief to be granted (See: Faby v. Air France, 113 Misc.2d 840 [Civ. Ct. 1982]; Seltzer v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc., 134 Misc.2d 1039 [Civ. Ct., Kings Co., 1987]; Ahmed v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., 59 Misc.3d 323 [Civ. Ct., Bronx Co. 2018]). It is for the Court to identify the applicable law to apply to the facts presented and to conduct hearings "in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law and shall not be bound by statutory provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence..." (Section 1804 of Uniform District Court Act).
Having considered the facts presented, it is apparent that the theory Plaintiff is asserting is one of negligence. As an initial matter, this case should be distinguished from those cases in which an injured Plaintiff as participant or spectator in a sport is deemed to have assumed the risk (See e.g. Ramos v. Michael Epstein Sports Productions Inc., 173 A.D.3d 1079 [2nd Dept., 2019]; Anand v. Kapoor, 15 N.Y.3d 946 [2010]); Mangan v. Engineer's Country Club, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 706 [2nd Dept., 2010]; Honohan v. Turrone, 297 A.D.2d 705 [2nd Dept., 2002]). There is no dispute that Plaintiff was a mere passerby on a public road, seemingly unaware of the possibility that a golf ball could be overhead.
Yet, even in this scenario, the law provides no remedy against Defendant absent proof that Defendant acted negligently in causing the golf ball to hit the Plaintiff's windshield. In Rinaldo v. McGovern, 167 A.D.2d 942 (4th Dept., 1990), the dissent disagreed with this principle, noting it would mean "as a matter of law, an injured passenger in a vehicle which is lawfully proceeding on a highway adjacent to a golf course has no cause of action against the golfer who drives a golf ball into the windshield of the car causing the driver to lose control and crash." The dissent further stated that "[s]urely it is foreseeable that if a golfer drives a ball 'out of bounds' onto the road it may strike an automobile. To absolve the golfer from fault against an innocent person unjust."
On appeal, the Court of Appeals expressly rejected the dissent's concern of an unjust result. In affirming the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals found that it was not enough to simply prove that Defendant struck the golf ball that caused damage:
To provide an actionable theory of liability, a person injured by a mishit golf ball must affirmatively show that the golfer failed to exercise due care by adducing proof, for example, that the golfer "aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm" (Nussbaum v. Lacopo, supra, 27 N.Y.2d at 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 265 N.E.2d 762).Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 N.Y.2d 729, 733, 587 N.E.2d 264, 267 (1991).
As has already been established in other cases, "slicing" or "hooking" the golf ball can happen to even the most experienced players and does not establish negligence (See: Id.; Defonce v. K.S.B. Arrowwood Realty Corp., 207 A.D.2d 427 [2nd Dept., 1994]; Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311 [1970]).
While the Court is guided by "substantial justice" in the Small Claims part, it cannot disregard the rule of law. Therefore, because there was no testimony or evidence presented which would allow this Court to find that Defendant acted unreasonably or negligently when striking the golf ball, the Court cannot find Defendant liable for damages to the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, in this case, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a definitive link between this Defendant and the golf ball that damaged his windshield. (See e.g.: Kress v. A & T Towing & Auto Inc., 1 Misc.3d 135 (A)[App. Term 2003]). For these reasons, Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is DISMISSED.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.