Admittedly, my negligence analysis is not perfect and I realize that you were intending to assume that Tiger was negligent in your one-line fact pattern. I just thought it would be interesting to think about whether Tiger really could be considered negligent in such a situation and I think the main point that I was trying to convey is consistent with your thoughts.

I agree that Tiger is the “but for” cause. I was just saying that proving this is not enough for a negligence claim. And I didn’t see a situation where Tiger deciding to hit the golf ball (assuming he was intending to hit his target) would constitute a breach of his duty. I understand that you would need more facts…I just think that it is a hard case to make that it is unreasonable (especially for one of Tiger Wood’s caliber) for a golfer to decide to hit a ball when the hole they are playing is clear. And in my opinion, (a jury could think differently) the facts you added wouldn’t constitute a breach of duty. What do you think?

As with everything…I am sure there is a fact pattern that could be dreamed up that would work. To me if it is unreasonable for a golfer to hit the ball, the person in harms way would have to be on the hole that the person striking the ball is on…and if that was the case it would move towards an intentional act.

I am just saying in the normal course of golf it is much less likely for a golfer to act unreasonably (to constitute negligence) than in other sports that involve direct interaction (sliding with spikes up, leading with helmet, not spotting cheerleader, high stick).

Side note: Would Tiger be held to a reasonably prudent person standard or a reasonably prudent “professional golfer” standard?

In a negligence analysis, Tiger’s duty would be to act in the manner of a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances. This would be the key to the negligence analysis, as damage and causation are clear. We can assume Vijay was injured to some degree by the ball and, but for Tiger hitting the ball Vijay wouldn’t have been injured. Thus Tiger is the cause in fact. Unless, or course, he can show that his driver has a mind of it’s own and was the intervening cause of the injury…

As with many negligence cases, the key is duty. Did he act reasonably? That is a fact sensitive inquiry and my half-joking one-line fact pattern probably didn’t provide enough information. For example, where on the other hole was Vijay walking? Does the other hole immediately adjoin the present hole such that Vijay could be standing in a location that Tiger has mishit into on prior occasions? If so, maybe it’s possible that Tiger breached his duty of care. Maybe a reasonable person wouldn’t have hit the ball until Vijay had moved. Who knows — I didn’t give enough facts.

With respect to golf being a sport, based on the analysis and articulated in Bakke, it most certainly would be.

The first step would be to decide whether Tiger “toeing” a drive that hits Vijay is a negligent act. First of all, negligence by definition is an uninentional act. So, we can assume that Tiger did not spray a ball into the opposite fairway because he had a ten shot lead and was mad at Vijay…

Running through the elements of negligence (1) duty (not sure of exact analysis here but something along the lines of Tiger is paid to compete and has a duty to perform to the best of his ability) (2) breach (assuming that Tiger’s “toe” shot was mis-hit, no breach)
(3) damage, assume Vijay suffered actual injury when hit (4) Cause in Fact, but for test fails here because no breach of duty (5) Proximate Cause, likely fails here because Tiger is the best golfer in the world and it is not foreseeable for him to injure another golfer

So, to answer the question could Tiger be liable or would the statute provide immunity I would say that in most situations Tiger would not be liable regardless of whether the statute provides immunity.

The mere fact of an accident does not establish negligence…the plaintiff must postulate how the defendant should have acted differently. In the cheeeleading case as you mentioned that Brittany Noffke, the cheerleader, alleges that “Bakke was supposed to be standing in a position that would allow him to catch her when she fell.” I don’t see what argument could me made in golf to establish a theory of negligence involving two players….especially when PGA Tour players are involved. Tiger should have not taken the club so far inside on his backswing?

This is most likely true because of the lack of physical contact associated with golf and the fact that it is an individual sport. PGA Tour players are susceptible to intentional acts (i.e. battery) but the statute would most likely be inapplicable in that situation. Or a tour player could be injured by the negligent act of tour organizer or media member (hit by camera, tripped by cord, etc.) but this would seem to fall outside of the purpose of immunity statute.

So, I would say that statute would not apply to golf but this conclusion does not really help the larger discussion of what is the definition of “sport” and is golf a sport.