Rinaldo v. McGovern
New York Court of Appeals
587 N.E.2d 264 (1991)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Roberta Rinaldo (plaintiff) was driving her car on a public road near a golf course. Arthur McGovern and Donald Vogel (golfers) (defendants) were playing on the course. McGovern hit a tee shot, which he meant to go straight ahead to the fairway, but McGovern badly mishit the ball. Instead of reaching the fairway, McGovern’s ball travelled sharply to the right, where it went through or over a group of trees and hit Rinaldo’s car. The ball shattered Rinaldo’s car’s windshield, causing injury to Rinaldo. Vogel also mishit his tee shot such that it veered to the right. There was no evidence that either golfer was careless in hitting the tee shots. Rinaldo sued the golfers. Per Rinaldo, McGovern was negligent in hitting his golf ball into her car, and both golfers failed to warn her about their forthcoming tee shots. The trial court granted summary judgment to the golfers, ruling that the golfers did not have a duty to warn Rinaldo and that McGovern did not commit actionable negligence simply by mishitting his tee shot. Rinaldo appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Titone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
