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.
Keywords: Franklin Ohio, complaint, owner, golf course, patron, driving range, struck, golf club Title: Franklin Ohio Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course: Patron of Driving Range Struck by Golf Club Incident Introduction: In Franklin, Ohio, a troubling incident has led to a complaint against the owner of a local golf course. A patron of the driving range was struck by a golf club, resulting in potential injuries and raising concerns regarding safety precautions. This detailed description aims to provide an overview of the incident and shed light on the types of complaints that may arise in such cases. 1. Types of Complaints against the Owner of the Golf Course: a. Negligence in ensuring the safety of patrons using the driving range. b. Lack of supervision or failure to provide adequate training to staff members. c. Absence or lack of proper safety measures and precautions in place. d. Failure to warn patrons about potential dangers and risks inherent to the driving range. Incident Description: On a seemingly ordinary day at the golf course in Franklin, Ohio, a patron of the driving range had a harrowing experience that sparked this complaint against the owner. While practicing his swing, an errant golf ball struck another patron, causing a severe injury. It is alleged that the individual responsible for the incident was not properly supervised, resulting in the unsafe use of a golf club. Acts of Negligence: The complaints stem from the alleged negligence of the owner in ensuring a safe environment for all patrons. Several key points highlight the potential grounds for complaint: 1. Lack of Safety Measures: There have been concerns raised about the absence of proper fencing or protective barriers around the driving range. This lack of safety measures poses a significant risk to patrons, as evident from this incident. 2. Inadequate Staff Supervision: It is argued that the owner failed to provide proper training and supervision to staff responsible for overseeing the driving range. This lack of oversight may have contributed to the unsafe actions of the individual involved in the incident. 3. Absence of Warning Signs: The complaint suggests that there were no visible warning signs informing patrons of potential dangers posed by swinging golf clubs in the vicinity. Failure to adequately warn individuals may be considered a breach of duty in maintaining a safe environment. Conclusion: The complaint against the owner of the golf course in Franklin, Ohio, following an incident where a patron of the driving range was struck by a golf club, highlights potential areas of concern. Negligence in ensuring safety measures, lack of proper supervision, and failure to provide adequate warning signs are among the key allegations made in this complaint. It is expected that through investigation and due process, appropriate measures will be taken to rectify any shortcomings and prevent such incidents in the future.Keywords: Franklin Ohio, complaint, owner, golf course, patron, driving range, struck, golf club Title: Franklin Ohio Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course: Patron of Driving Range Struck by Golf Club Incident Introduction: In Franklin, Ohio, a troubling incident has led to a complaint against the owner of a local golf course. A patron of the driving range was struck by a golf club, resulting in potential injuries and raising concerns regarding safety precautions. This detailed description aims to provide an overview of the incident and shed light on the types of complaints that may arise in such cases. 1. Types of Complaints against the Owner of the Golf Course: a. Negligence in ensuring the safety of patrons using the driving range. b. Lack of supervision or failure to provide adequate training to staff members. c. Absence or lack of proper safety measures and precautions in place. d. Failure to warn patrons about potential dangers and risks inherent to the driving range. Incident Description: On a seemingly ordinary day at the golf course in Franklin, Ohio, a patron of the driving range had a harrowing experience that sparked this complaint against the owner. While practicing his swing, an errant golf ball struck another patron, causing a severe injury. It is alleged that the individual responsible for the incident was not properly supervised, resulting in the unsafe use of a golf club. Acts of Negligence: The complaints stem from the alleged negligence of the owner in ensuring a safe environment for all patrons. Several key points highlight the potential grounds for complaint: 1. Lack of Safety Measures: There have been concerns raised about the absence of proper fencing or protective barriers around the driving range. This lack of safety measures poses a significant risk to patrons, as evident from this incident. 2. Inadequate Staff Supervision: It is argued that the owner failed to provide proper training and supervision to staff responsible for overseeing the driving range. This lack of oversight may have contributed to the unsafe actions of the individual involved in the incident. 3. Absence of Warning Signs: The complaint suggests that there were no visible warning signs informing patrons of potential dangers posed by swinging golf clubs in the vicinity. Failure to adequately warn individuals may be considered a breach of duty in maintaining a safe environment. Conclusion: The complaint against the owner of the golf course in Franklin, Ohio, following an incident where a patron of the driving range was struck by a golf club, highlights potential areas of concern. Negligence in ensuring safety measures, lack of proper supervision, and failure to provide adequate warning signs are among the key allegations made in this complaint. It is expected that through investigation and due process, appropriate measures will be taken to rectify any shortcomings and prevent such incidents in the future.
