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: Pennsylvania Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course by Patron of Driving Range Struck by Golf Club Introduction: In this Pennsylvania complaint, we are addressing a serious incident where a patron of a driving range at a golf course has been struck by a golf club. The complainant holds the owner of the golf course responsible for the accident and seeks appropriate compensation for the damages incurred. This complaint sheds light on the potentially negligent actions of the golf course owner and demands accountability for their alleged failure to maintain a safe environment. Keywords: Pennsylvania, complaint, owner of golf course, patron, driving range, struck, golf club Types of Pennsylvania Complaint Against Owner of Golf Course by Patron of Driving Range Struck by Golf Club: 1. Negligence in Maintenance and Safety: This complaint accuses the owner of the golf course of negligence in maintaining a safe environment within the driving range area. It alleges that the owner failed to implement adequate safety measures, leading to the patron being struck by a golf club. It seeks compensation for the resulting injuries, medical expenses, and emotional distress. Keywords: negligence, maintenance, safety, environment, driving range, safety measures, injuries, medical expenses, emotional distress 2. Lack of Warning Signs and Instructions: This complaint highlights the golf course owner's alleged failure to provide proper warning signs and instructions within the driving range. It argues that the owner should have clearly communicated the potential risks associated with golfing activities to patrons, thus preventing such accidents. The complainant seeks compensation for the resulting injuries, pain, and suffering. Keywords: warning signs, instructions, communication, risks, golfing activities, accidents, injuries, pain, suffering 3. Inadequate Staff Supervision: This complaint claims that the owner of the golf course failed to ensure adequate staff supervision within the driving range area, resulting in the complainant being struck by a golf club. It argues that the owner should have assigned trained personnel to monitor and prevent any potential hazards or accidents. The compensation sought includes medical expenses, lost wages, and punitive damages. Keywords: inadequate staff supervision, staff, monitor, prevent, hazards, accidents, medical expenses, lost wages, punitive damages 4. Failure to Maintain Proper Distances: This complaint centers around the owner's alleged failure to maintain appropriate distances between the driving range participants and the complainant, leading to the golf club striking the patron. It argues that the proper allocation of space should have been ensured to prevent such incidents. The complainant seeks compensation for injuries, pain, mental trauma, and compensation for loss of earnings. Keywords: proper distances, driving range participants, allocation of space, incidents, injuries, pain, mental trauma, compensation, loss of earnings Conclusion: These various types of Pennsylvania complaints against the owner of a golf course by a patron struck by a golf club shed light on potential negligence and the failure to maintain a safe environment within the driving range. Each type seeks compensation for various damages caused by the accident, emphasizing the need for the golf course owner to be held accountable for their alleged negligence.
