Whitey’s [31 Club], a bar, sponsored a golf scramble at the Elks’ golf course in Marion [Indiana,] on August 19, 2006. * * *

Jerry Jones * * * signed up to drive a beverage cart.

The morning of the scramble, Jones invited [his] then-sixteen-year- old [granddaughter, Cassie]

Pfenning, to ride in a beverage cart with him during the tournament.

With her mother’s permission, Pfenning agreed to join Jones.

Upon arriving at the golf course, Jones retrieved a beverage cart for his and Pfenning’s use * * * . The cart had a large cooler in the back for drinks but no roof or windshield.

Pfenning received no instructions regarding how or where to operate the cart; she was unfamiliar with golf etiquette and had been to a golf course only once before in 1997.

Prior to the start of the scramble, Jones decided to join one of the teams playing in the scramble as it was short a player. He therefore left Pfenning with his sister, Lottie Kendall. Kendall and Pfenning drove the beverage cart together for a short period of time until Kendall also decided to play in a foursome. Christie Edwards, a Whitey’s employee, therefore took Kendall’s place in the beverage cart. Pfenning drove the cart, and Edwards dispensed the beverages to the scramble’s participants.

Approximately three hours into the tournament, [Joseph] Lineman, a participant in the scramble, hit a drive from the sixteenth hole’s tee.

* * * Pfenning, who was driving the beverage cart on a cart path near the eighteenth hole, did not hear any warning regarding the ball’s approach. After traveling more than two hundred feet, the ball struck Pfenning in the mouth, causing injuries to her mouth, jaw, and teeth.

On February 7, 2007, Pfenning fi led a complaint against the Defendants [Lineman, Whitey’s, the Elks Club, and others]. She alleged

[that the defendants were negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care for her safety while on the golf course.]

* * * *

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligent conduct,

[Pfenning] suffered painful and permanent injuries and incurred signifi cant medical and dental expenses. Several of [her] teeth were destroyed and her teeth remain missing and/or disfi gured.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligent conduct,

[Pfenning] suffered mental and emotional pain and anguish.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligent conduct,

[Pfenning]’s ability to function as a whole person has been impaired.

The quality of [her] life has been signifi cantly diminished as a result of the Defendants’ negligent conduct.

* * *

* * * The trial court [granted] the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

* * * *

Pfenning asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

She argues that the Defendants owed her a duty to prevent her from being injured and were negligent in breaching that duty.

* * * *

This court had consistently held that “there is no duty from one participant in a sports activity to another to prevent injury resulting from an inherent risk of the sport.” [Emphasis added.]

* * * *

Here, Pfenning maintains that she was not a participant in the golf scramble because “she was not playing;

she was not watching the event;

she was not signed up on a team;

nor was she doing anything related to the activity of golf.” Thus, she argues that the Defendants owed her a duty to prevent her injury. We disagree.

Pfenning’s presence on the golf course was due to the fact there was a golf scramble; she had agreed to function as a driver or rider in a beverage cart provided for the golf scramble; and she performed this function and assisted in providing beverages to players in the golf scramble. If not for the golf scramble, Pfenning would not have been on the golf course the day of the incident. Although not a player herself, she clearly was “part of the sporting event * * * involved[.]”

* * * *

Pfenning, however, also seems to argue that she could not have consented to the inherent risks of golf as “she knew nothing about golf and could not appreciate any risk involved with being near a golf course.” We fi nd this argument unavailing [failing to achieve the desired result].

* * * *

Even if we were to assume that Pfenning arrived at the golf course utterly ignorant of the game, the undisputed facts show that Pfenning had been participating in the golf scramble event for approximately three hours prior to being struck by the golf ball. Over this extended time period, she had been delivering beverages to foursomes during play.

We fi nd that this supports an inference that Pfenning was aware of the inherent risks of golf; namely, that it involves players hitting golf balls long distances and that some, if not many, of these balls invariably fail to land where intended Given Pfenning’s status as a participant in the golf scramble, with its inherent risks, we fi nd that the Defendants did not owe her a duty.

* * * *

Finding no issues of material fact and that the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Affi rmed.

Questions:-

1. Should the courts distinguish between different levels of participation in a sporting event when determining liability? Explain.
2. Suppose that Pfenning had been riding in the beverage cart with her grandfather when she was struck by the golf ball. In that situation, would the outcome of this case have been any different? Why or why not?