Whether getting hit by a golf cart is an inherent risk of golfing; Determining whether a given risk is inherent in a recreational activity for purposes of establishing the relevant standard of conduct; “Reckless misconduct” standard; Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley; Whether the risk was reasonably foreseeable; Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. (NY); Yoneda v. Tom (HI); Foronda v. Hawaii Int’l Boxing Club (HI App.); Thompson v. McNeill (OH); Maddox v. City of NY (NY); American Powerlifting Ass’n v. Cotillo (MD); Pfenning v. Lineman (IN); Wooten v. Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC (IN App.); Foreseeability defined; Iliades v. Dieffenbacher N. Am. Inc.; Asking the judiciary to define the essence of a sport; PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin; Foreseeability as a fact question; Lego v. Liss; Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship; Nezworski v. Mazanec; Consideration of the general rules of the activity; Lux v. Cox (WD NY)

Noting that it had never explained how to determine whether a particular risk is inherent in a recreational activity for purposes of establishing the relevant standard of conduct, the court held that a fact-finder should ask whether the risk was reasonably foreseeable. This case arose from defendant running over plaintiff with a cart while they were golfing. If the risk of “getting hit by a golf cart is an inherent risk” of golfing, he only owed a duty “to refrain from reckless misconduct, but cannot be held liable for negligent conduct. If not,” then he would “be held to the negligence standard of conduct.” The court in Ritchie-Gamester “did not expressly establish the proper analysis for assessing whether a particular risk is inherent in an activity.” The court now held that “the analysis must focus on whether the risk was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. Ritchie-Gamester adopted the reckless-misconduct standard because it reflects the participants’ expectations when they voluntarily subject themselves to the risks in an activity.” This lends itself to applying a foreseeability test. Numerous courts in cases like this have asked “whether a risk was reasonably foreseeable or obvious, including in cases involving golf cart accidents.” The court noted that the “foreseeability of the risk is a question of fact,” and the test is objective, focusing on “what risks a reasonable participant, under the circumstances, would have foreseen.” The factual circumstances include “the general characteristics of the participants, such as their relationship to each other and to the activity and their experience with the sport.” While the general rules of the activity can also be considered, they “are not dispositive, and it is also relevant whether the participants engaged in any regular departures from the rules or other practices not accounted for by the rules.” Any regulations prescribed by the venue are also relevant. The Court of Appeals “correctly considered whether the use of golf carts was required, and it is also relevant whether golf carts were banned or confined to certain areas of the course.” The court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the trial court.