A voluntary participant in a game, sport, or contest, assumes all risks incidental to the particular game, sport, or contest which are obvious and foreseeable. However, he or she does not assume an extraordinary risk which is not normally incident to the game or sport. Even where the assumption of the risk doctrine applies, defendants have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport. While under the doctrine of assumption of risk, a defendant has no legal duty to eliminate or protect a plaintiff from the risks inherent in a sport, but the defendant owes a duty not to increase the inherent risks. To determine whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to a sports participant, the court must decide whether the injury suffered arises from a risk inherent in the sport, and whether imposing a duty might fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.
A person who operates a place of public amusement or entertainment must exercise reasonable care with regard to the construction, maintenance, and management of his buildings or structures and his premises, having regard to the character of entertainment given and the customary conduct of persons attending such entertainment. The operator must employ sufficient personnel to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. He or she must use ordinary care to maintain the floors and aisles along which patrons are expected to pass in a reasonably safe condition for their use; and this principle has been applied in cases where personal injury resulted from a slippery floor, aisle, ramp or walkway, defective carpet, or the presence of an object the floor or in the aisle.
Illinois Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course by Patron of Driving Range Struck by Golf Club: In this Illinois complaint, a patron of a golf driving range is seeking legal action against the owner of a golf course after being struck by a golf club. This incident raises concerns regarding the safety measures implemented by the golf course owner and holds them accountable for any negligence or failure to provide a safe environment for patrons. The complaint highlights the following key points: 1. Negligence: The plaintiff argues that the owner of the golf course failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent such accidents from occurring. They state that the golf course owner breached their duty of care towards patrons by not providing adequate safety precautions or warnings. 2. Inadequate Safety Measures: The complaint points out that there was a lack of safety nets or protective barriers between the driving range and the adjacent golf course fairway, exposing patrons to the risk of being struck by golf balls or clubs. This oversight is seen as a direct result of the golf course owner's negligence. 3. Failure to Warn: The plaintiff alleges that the golf course owner also failed to adequately warn patrons of the potential dangers associated with using the driving range in proximity to the golf course fairway. This lack of proper signage or verbal warnings contributed to the plaintiff's injury. 4. Severe Injury: The complaint details the extensive physical and emotional harm suffered by the plaintiff due to the incident. It highlights the specific injuries sustained, such as fractures, lacerations, or head trauma, and the subsequent medical treatment required. It also emphasizes the pain and suffering experienced by the plaintiff, along with any resulting financial losses, including medical expenses and lost wages. Possible subtypes of the complaint include: 1. Illinois Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course for Negligence and Failure to Provide Safe Environment 2. Illinois Complaint Against Golf Course Owner for Inadequate Safety Measures and Lack of Warning Signs. 3. Illinois Complaint Against Golf Course Owner for Failing to Protect Patrons from Stray Golf Balls or Clubs. (Note: All provided information is fictional and should be used for illustrative purposes only.)
