When the Fairways Aren’t So Fair: Golf Liability in New Jersey Part I – The First Swing

Golf can seem so serene—beautiful green fairways, fresh air, sunshine, the sound of a perfect tee shot off the first hole and a birdie putt falling into the cup on 18. The sport is iconic, full of tradition and pure class. As an avid (but mediocre) golfer myself, I had the recent pleasure of attending the 45th Ryder Cup, played at the historic Bethpage Black Course in Farmingdale, New York. It was estimated that over the length of the tournament, almost 250,000 fans packed the golf course, walked the grounds, and took in the action of Team USA versus Team Europe.

But even a prestigious event like the Ryder Cup serves as a reminder that, whether it is your local municipal links or a top-of-the-line tournament-ready facility, golf courses are not risk-free and contain many hidden hazards. In the span of one day at the Ryder Cup, I witnessed several patrons slip down a variety of hills that cascade the course, stumble and fall after stepping on uneven ground off the fairway, and almost get hit by errant golf shots.

When injuries occur, questions of liability always arise. In New Jersey, golfers themselves and the operators of private or public courses face a range of legal duties. Understanding the law helps both the injured and those who run the courses see where the risks are and determine how to save par at the end of the day.

In this three-part series, we will explore the various aspects of golf liability in New Jersey, from general liability among golfers to the specific responsibilities of course operators to the legal lessons that can help everyone stay on course.

Standard of Care & General Liability Among Golfers

Even if you don’t play golf, you know what it means when someone yells “Fore!” Getting hit by another golfer’s ball or club is usually the first thing people think about when learning of an on-the-course incident.

However, getting hit with a golf ball or club alone is not enough to necessarily justify taking legal action. Although all cases are fact-specific, it is well established that New Jersey has adopted a “reckless or intentional” standard for recreational sports, thus limiting liability to only those acts that are more than ordinary negligence. See Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494 (1994).

The New Jersey Supreme Court in Schick v. Ferolito, 167 N.J. 7 (2001), applied this standard to matters involving golf. In Schick, the defendant hit a poor tee shot before taking an alleged unannounced mulligan. Other members of his foursome had already begun walking toward their golf carts when they noticed, at the last second, the defendant taking another swing. The ball struck the plaintiff in his right eye socket, causing significant injuries.

The court held that, when one participant injures another during golf-related activity, the Crawn reckless or intentional standard applies. The court highlighted that “an actor acts recklessly when he or she intentionally commits an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow, and which thus is usually accompanied by a conscious indifference to the consequences.” See Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, §34 at 212 (5th Ed. 1984).

The standard is objective and may be proven by showing that a defendant “proceeded in disregard of a high and excessive degree of danger either known to him [or her] or apparent to a reasonable person in his [or her] position.” Id. at 214. The court ultimately determined that a reasonable jury could find that the defendant’s decision to take an unannounced mulligan with the plaintiff being in the line of fire constituted reckless conduct.

In Corino v. Duffy, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 202—although not binding precedent—the lower court was tasked with determining whether a golfer’s shanked provisional shot that struck the plaintiff approximately 60 yards away supported a finding of recklessness. The court stated that just because a player does something in violation of golf rules or longstanding etiquette, in and of itself, does not automatically establish recklessness:

“This Court agrees that any single violation of a rule or breach of etiquette in any recreational sport—notwithstanding other factors—cannot constitute recklessness. Thus, in the game of golf, a player’s decision to take a provisional shot after having already left the tee box, in and of itself, is not reckless. A player’s failure to provide other parties with a courtesy warning of his intention to take that provisional, in and of itself, is not reckless. And, lastly, a player’s failure to call ‘fore’ after shanking a provisional shot in the direction of other players, in and of itself, is not reckless. To hold otherwise would subject nearly every amateur golfer in the State of New Jersey to legal liability for errors and judgment calls that are an inherent part of the game.”

Despite the commentary, the court determined that in following the Schick “totality of circumstances” analysis, “a jury must assess a combination of alleged events.” The Court held that the disputed facts, when construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, were sufficient to lead a jury to the conclusion that defendant’s conduct was reckless; therefore, summary judgment was denied.

Overall, when incidents on the course occur, courts are now tasked with assessing the actions or inactions taken by the golfers involved. If the totality of the facts suggests that a golfer acted recklessly or intentionally during a golf-related activity, then liability may arguably attach, summary judgment will likely be denied, and the issues will ultimately be left for the jury to decide.

Negligent Operation & Entrustment of a Golf Cart

As a young golfer, one of the most exciting aspects of playing 18 holes was finally being able to drive the golf carts. Most courses set their own restrictions for when patrons are allowed to operate their carts. In New Jersey, this typically aligns with being 16 years old, the year you can obtain a learner’s permit. The thought is, if you are old enough to operate a motor vehicle, you are old enough to operate a golf cart. Our courts have concluded that there is no “conceptual difference” between a golf cart and a motor vehicle. See McKeown v. Am. Golf Corp., 462 N.J. Super. 339, 343-44 (App. Div. 2020). An operator of a golf cart has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its passengers and is subject to the same duty of care imposed on the operator of a motor vehicle. See Wlasiuk v. McElwee, 334 N.J. Super. 661, 667 (App. Div. 2000). Therefore, if you negligently operate a golf cart on the course and another party is injured as a result, you can be held liable under an ordinary negligence standard. Furthermore, if you negligently entrust another unqualified or inexperienced individual with the operation of a golf cart, you could also be held liable.

In McKeown, the defendant was an experienced golfer who rented a golf cart to use for his round. In order to do so, the course required him to sign a rental agreement wherein he agreed to “assume all risk” associated with the cart’s use. He represented that he was “familiar with [its] operation and proper use” and he promised he would not permit the cart to be operated by anyone under the age of sixteen “or anyone unfamiliar with the operation and proper use of the cart.” The defendant’s playing partner was his 82-year-old co-defendant father-in-law, who was a resident of Scotland and only in the United States for the second time. The evidence revealed that he did not have a driver’s license and likely had little to no experience operating a golf cart. At one point during the round, the co-defendant father-in-law took over driving the golf cart, and, when doing so, he struck the plaintiff golfer who was trying to retrieve his putter from his golf bag. The plaintiff was pinned between the two golf carts and suffered injury. The co-defendant father-in-law alleged that a rangefinder fell while driving the cart and got lodged under the pedals, affecting their proper use.

The court held that, regardless of that allegation and the existence of any rental agreement, the defendant “had a common law obligation to refrain from entrusting the golf cart to an incompetent operator” and that the co-defendant father-in-law was “someone allegedly unfamiliar with its use.” Therefore, both could be found liable by the trier of fact under ordinary negligence standards. The court concluded that it was for the jury to determine whether the co-defendant’s inexperience with golf carts was a proximate cause of the cart’s collision with the plaintiff.

In Popper v. Indian Spring Golf Ass’n, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 363, the plaintiff was injured when he fell from a golf cart during a charity golf outing. The parties involved had conflicting accounts; however, it was alleged that after teeing off, the defendant and his playing partner were sitting in their two-person golf cart when the plaintiff stood on the side of it, holding onto the top. The defendant allegedly suggested to the plaintiff several times to sit in his own cart, but he declined; however, he also contrastingly testified that he did not even know the plaintiff was standing on the side of his cart. The defendant began to drive the golf cart away from the tee box area. After driving for approximately 30-45 seconds, the defendant turned off the blacktop cart path and onto a grassy area of bumpy terrain towards the fairway. He allegedly had the gas pedal fully depressed at the time and was going as fast as the cart could go. Soon thereafter, the plaintiff tumbled off the cart, fell to the ground, and suffered serious injuries.

The issue for the court was whether the defendant breached his golf cart operator duty of care and caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court determined that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to conclude the defendant breached a duty of care to the plaintiff and caused his injuries. The court indicated that if the jury concludes that the defendant knew the plaintiff was standing on the golf cart, drove the cart anyway with the gas pedal fully depressed, and drove onto a bumpy terrain, it could determine that he failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his passengers, thus breaching his duty.

As for causation, the court determined that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant’s breach of duty was a substantial contributing factor in producing the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant attempted to argue that the plaintiff was required to offer expert testimony on the proper operation of a golf cart. The court disagreed and stated that “[t]he operation of a golf cart, like the operation of a motor vehicle, is a matter within the ken of the average juror. Expert testimony is not necessary to assist the jury in understanding evidence relating to the operation of a golf cart.” As a result, summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for trial.

Like the operation of your motor vehicle, if you are negligent in any arguable capacity when driving a golf cart on the course, you could be found liable for your actions. Some potential examples of this include, but are not limited to, operating the golf cart at unsafe speeds, driving too aggressively, making sharp or improper turns, driving over dangerous terrain, striking trees or objects on the course, aggressively braking, operating the cart with passengers not properly seated, operating the cart while overly intoxicated or under the influence of illicit drugs, not properly securing your golf bag to the cart, driving into bunkers or water hazards, and driving into the shot line of other golfers. Similarly, if you entrust your golf cart to someone who is underage or inexperienced, liability could also attach.

Conclusion

We teed off this conversation by covering the basic rules of liability among golfers. We have explored the risks golfers face from each other—whether it is a golf ball gone rogue or a cart-related accident. Golfers are not only responsible for their own safety but also for keeping others safe, which means proper awareness and etiquette can make all the difference. However, the liability discussion does not end with the golfers.

In Part II of this series, we will shift our focus to the course itself—examining premises liability, vegetation hazards, weather-related events, and public entity concerns. As you will discover, operators of these facilities need to stay out of the rough by carefully managing the potential dangers their courses present.

Reprinted with permission from the December 15, 2025, edition of the New Jersey Law Journal © 2025 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.