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.
Title: Michigan Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course by Patron of Driving Range Struck by Golf Club Keywords: Michigan, complaint, golf course, driving range, patron, struck, golf club Introduction: In Michigan, patrons of golf courses have a reasonable expectation of safety while using the facilities provided. However, accidents can occur, leading to potential legal inquiries and complaints against the owner of the golf course. One such incident involves a patron being struck by a golf club while practicing at the driving range. This article will outline the various types of complaints that can arise under these circumstances and shed light on their implications. Types of Michigan Complaints Against the Owner of a Golf Course: 1. Negligence in Supervision and Safety Measures: In this type of complaint, the patron alleges that the golf course owner failed to adequately supervise or implement necessary safety measures to prevent accidents such as being struck by a golf club at the driving range. Examples may include insufficient fencing or netting, lack of warning signs, inadequate distance between practice bays, or lack of trained staff to ensure safe practices are observed. 2. Lack of Proper Maintenance: This complaint contends that the golf course owner neglected their duty to maintain the driving range equipment, resulting in a situation where a golf club could unintentionally strike a patron. Examples of maintenance issues may include worn-out or defective golf club grips, faulty ball dispensers, or broken ball-retrieval systems. 3. Inadequate Staff Training: This complaint focuses on the golf course owner's failure to provide adequate training to their staff to ensure they can safely and effectively manage the driving range. Insufficiently trained staff members may inadvertently create an unsafe environment or fail to respond appropriately in case of emergencies, increasing the risk of incidents such as patrons being struck by golf clubs. 4. Violation of State or Federal Regulations: In some cases, a complaint may argue that the golf course owner violated state or federal regulations, resulting in the injury of a driving range patron. These regulations may pertain to safety protocols, equipment standards, or operational guidelines specifically outlined for golf courses. 5. Premises Liability: This complaint suggests that the golf course owner is liable for injuries sustained on their property due to their failure to provide a safe environment for patrons. The patron may argue that the absence of necessary safety measures or failure to address potential risks contributed to the accident involving a golf club. Conclusion: Michigan has certain legal provisions in place to protect patrons who visit golf courses and use driving ranges. When a patron is struck by a golf club during practice, various types of complaints can arise against the owner of the golf course. These may include negligence in supervision and safety, lack of proper maintenance, inadequate staff training, violation of regulations, or premises liability. Each complaint type holds significant implications, emphasizing the importance of ensuring safety measures are adhered to by golf course owners for the well-being of their patrons.Title: Michigan Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course by Patron of Driving Range Struck by Golf Club Keywords: Michigan, complaint, golf course, driving range, patron, struck, golf club Introduction: In Michigan, patrons of golf courses have a reasonable expectation of safety while using the facilities provided. However, accidents can occur, leading to potential legal inquiries and complaints against the owner of the golf course. One such incident involves a patron being struck by a golf club while practicing at the driving range. This article will outline the various types of complaints that can arise under these circumstances and shed light on their implications. Types of Michigan Complaints Against the Owner of a Golf Course: 1. Negligence in Supervision and Safety Measures: In this type of complaint, the patron alleges that the golf course owner failed to adequately supervise or implement necessary safety measures to prevent accidents such as being struck by a golf club at the driving range. Examples may include insufficient fencing or netting, lack of warning signs, inadequate distance between practice bays, or lack of trained staff to ensure safe practices are observed. 2. Lack of Proper Maintenance: This complaint contends that the golf course owner neglected their duty to maintain the driving range equipment, resulting in a situation where a golf club could unintentionally strike a patron. Examples of maintenance issues may include worn-out or defective golf club grips, faulty ball dispensers, or broken ball-retrieval systems. 3. Inadequate Staff Training: This complaint focuses on the golf course owner's failure to provide adequate training to their staff to ensure they can safely and effectively manage the driving range. Insufficiently trained staff members may inadvertently create an unsafe environment or fail to respond appropriately in case of emergencies, increasing the risk of incidents such as patrons being struck by golf clubs. 4. Violation of State or Federal Regulations: In some cases, a complaint may argue that the golf course owner violated state or federal regulations, resulting in the injury of a driving range patron. These regulations may pertain to safety protocols, equipment standards, or operational guidelines specifically outlined for golf courses. 5. Premises Liability: This complaint suggests that the golf course owner is liable for injuries sustained on their property due to their failure to provide a safe environment for patrons. The patron may argue that the absence of necessary safety measures or failure to address potential risks contributed to the accident involving a golf club. Conclusion: Michigan has certain legal provisions in place to protect patrons who visit golf courses and use driving ranges. When a patron is struck by a golf club during practice, various types of complaints can arise against the owner of the golf course. These may include negligence in supervision and safety, lack of proper maintenance, inadequate staff training, violation of regulations, or premises liability. Each complaint type holds significant implications, emphasizing the importance of ensuring safety measures are adhered to by golf course owners for the well-being of their patrons.
