Syracuse, N.Y. – New York’s highest court has tossed a lawsuit from a golfer who sued a Central New York country club after a golf ball struck him in the eye during a tournament five years ago. In a 6-0 decision, the state Court of Appeals on April 15 upheld an appellate court’s decision dismissing the lawsuit by David Katleski against the Cazenovia Golf Club, a private country club in the Madison County town of Cazenovia. Justices ruled the club was not liable for Katleski’s injuries because golfers voluntarily accept the risk of being hit by a golf ball every time they step onto a golf course. Katleski, a Cazenovia resident and a member of the golf club for 18 years, was struck in the left eye by a golf ball while riding in a golf cart on the 7th hole fairway during a tournament on June 20, 2020. The ball had been hit by Manlius resident Justin Hubbard, another participant in the tournament, from the 3rd hole tee and hooked sharply left into the adjacent 7th fairway, according to court records. Katleski sued the country club three months later, alleging the club operated a “dangerously designed golf course that unreasonably enhanced the risk of being struck by a golf ball.” The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for “severe and permanent personal injuries” suffered when the ball struck his eye. Katleski also sued Hubbard and Hubbard’s father, Richard, who accompanied him at the tee when he took the shot, but a lower court dismissed the allegations against them. The country club filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that it could not be held liable for Katleski’s injuries because, by engaging in the recreational sport of golf, he voluntarily assumed the risk of being hit by a golf ball. Courts in New York have ruled previously that sports venues are not liable if a participant is injured in the normal course of the sport, unless the owner has enhanced the sport’s inherent risks in a way that is not obvious to the participant. The 9-hole Cazenovia course, situated along Route 92 high above Cazenovia Lake, has remained substantially the same since it was constructed in 1924, according to testimony in the case. But Katleski argued that the golf club created an unreasonably unsafe condition when it installed an additional tee box on the third hole about a decade before the incident to increase the difficulty of the hole. The new tee location, used primarily during tournaments, did not provide a clear view of the 7th fairway, creating an unreasonable risk of injuries from errant shots, he alleged. State Supreme Court Judge Joseph McBride denied the club’s motion for summary judgment, ruling there were triable issues of fact as to whether the club had created an unreasonable risk of being hit with a golf ball. But in a 2-1 decision, the Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department overruled McBride. In the ruling, the justices said being hit by a golf ball is a “commonly appreciated risk” of golf. Furthermore, the justices said Katleski acknowledged during testimony in the case that he was “well aware of and appreciated this risk.” “Plaintiff was aware of the location of tee A yet continued to play in the tournament despite his concerns,” the justices wrote. “Defendant’s experts further established that the topography and layout of the subject course – including the proximity between the fairways and tees – was standard for a classic golf course and that defendant had no duty to eliminate or otherwise mitigate this risk." The Court of Appeals upheld the appellate court’s decision, saying there was no question of fact as to whether the club unreasonably increased the risk of players being struck by golf. The court noted in its ruling that Katleski had testified he had played on the course about 100 times, including twice on the day he was struck. “Katleski acknowledged that getting hit by a golf ball is an inherent risk of playing golf, and even claimed that on the day of the accident, he remarked to other players that the placement of tee box A was dangerous due to the lack of a clear line of sight between that box and the seventh hole,” the court wrote. An attorney for Katleski did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. The National Golf Course Owners Association, which filed a brief in support of the golf club, said the top court’s verdict reinforced the long-standing legal principle of “assumption of risk” in recreational sports, especially golf. ”We certainly feel for the injured golfer in this case, as no course owner or operator wants to see a customer get hurt,” said Jay Karen, the association’s CEO. “And yet it was important to NGCOA to defend Cazenovia, so that the inherent and attractive elements of the game and fields of play could be preserved.” Karen told syracuse.com | The Post-Standard that golf clubs frequently add or move tee boxes and the verdict would have reverberated throughout the golf industry if the club lost the case. “It certainly would have set a new precedent and that would have been a concern,” he said. Rick Moriarty covers business news and consumer issues. Got a tip, comment or story idea? Contact him anytime: Email | X | Facebook | 315-470-3148