$15M Jury Verdict in Topgolf Injury Case Over Child’s Skull Fracture

An Oregon family has secured a $15 million jury award after their nine-year-old son was struck in the face by a golf club during a birthday party at a Topgolf facility in 2021. The child, who suffered a depressed skull fracture and cerebral hemorrhage, had been seated in a non-hitting area at the Hillsboro, Oregon, venue when another child swung a club and unintentionally struck him above the right eye. The injury occurred in an area marked off only by a red line—a design element that the plaintiff argued was dangerously insufficient to prevent such accidents.

According to the lawsuit, the child was seated behind the hitting bay in what appeared to be a safe zone, but due to the absence of a physical barrier, the swinging club reached beyond the designated play space. Kristen Thomsen, the boy’s mother, filed suit in 2023, contending that Topgolf had deliberately prioritized entertainment over safety. The complaint alleged that the company’s bay design lacked essential safety measures and was “intentionally designed to promote a feeling of fun and whimsy at the expense of customer safety.”

The Trial

The federal trial spanned 11 days, culminating in three days of jury deliberations. On September 5, 2025, the jury found Topgolf and its Hillsboro location negligent and liable for the child’s injuries. Jurors awarded nearly $3.3 million in economic damages and $12.5 million in non-economic damages to the Thomsen family. Topgolf attempted to deflect partial responsibility to two adults who were supervising the party, Jim Watkins and Arthur Hung, both of whom were named as third-party defendants. While the jury determined that Topgolf bore the vast majority of the blame, it assigned 3% of the fault to Watkins and Hung for allegedly failing to supervise the children adequately. Topgolf had filed a counterclaim against the two men, accusing them of negligence that contributed to the incident. However, the minimal fault attributed to them reflected the jury’s consensus that the primary issue stemmed from Topgolf’s design and operational decisions.

The Settlement on Punitive Damages

Although the jury was set to consider punitive damages in a second phase of the trial, both parties reached a confidential settlement agreement the day after the verdict. On September 6, the parties informed U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez that they had resolved the punitive damages portion out of court. Judge Hernandez ordered a joint status report to be filed by November 4. This development avoids further litigation over whether Topgolf’s conduct met the threshold for punitive liability. Nonetheless, the initial verdict stands as a significant financial judgment and a public critique of the company’s safety protocols.

The Legal Arguments

The Thomsen family's attorneys argued that Topgolf's facility failed to meet reasonable safety standards, especially in areas where children were expected to be present. The lack of a physical barrier between the seating and hitting zones was a central issue. As outlined in court filings, the family contended that the design was a “conscious decision” that sacrificed safety for aesthetic and recreational appeal. Topgolf, represented in part by defense attorney Heidi Mandt of Williams Kastner, denied liability and sought to redirect some of the blame to party hosts Watkins and Hung. The defense maintained that adult supervision should have mitigated any risk to the child. However, the jury overwhelmingly rejected that position. The plaintiff was represented by Anne Foster, Samuel Smith, and Jaimee King of Smith Foster King LLP, who built their case around evidence of unsafe facility design and lack of proper barriers that would have prevented the injury.

What’s Next?

Although the verdict concludes this particular legal battle, its implications for the recreational entertainment industry may be far-reaching. The jury’s award of $15.8 million signals a heightened standard of care expected from businesses, especially those that attract families with young children. The confidential nature of the punitive damages settlement leaves some questions unanswered. However, the case raises awareness of the potential risks at entertainment facilities and may influence future design and safety decisions within the industry. Legal observers will likely track whether Topgolf modifies its bay designs in response to the verdict or faces similar litigation in other jurisdictions. For now, the Oregon ruling stands as a significant cautionary tale about balancing customer experience with public safety.

Law Firms Involved

Plaintiff: Smith Foster King LLP
Topgolf: Williams Kastner
Third-Party Defendants: Foley Sampson & Lewis PLLC