A Miami-Dade County premises liability lawsuit stemming from an errant golf ball strike resulted in a complete defense verdict for a golf resort after an eight-day trial. The plaintiff alleged the resort negligently designed and maintained its golf course and failed to warn of a dangerous condition associated with a restaurant patio positioned near two golf holes. The claimed damages centered on serious neurological and psychiatric conditions, including a traumatic brain injury alleged to have caused bipolar disorder with psychotic episodes and post-traumatic stress disorder, along with a loss of consortium claim asserted by the plaintiff’s husband. The defense contested both liability and causation, and the jury ultimately found no liability.
Incident and Claims Against the Golf Resort
The case arose after the plaintiff was struck on the side of the head by an errant golf ball while eating lunch on a resort restaurant patio overlooking the greens of two different golf holes. The plaintiff alleged that the resort’s configuration of the course and its proximity to the patio created an unreasonably dangerous condition. She contended the incident was reasonably foreseeable and attributed fault to negligent design and negligent maintenance of the golf course, as well as an alleged failure to warn guests about the risk of being struck by a golf ball.
Damages were framed as extensive and long-term. The plaintiff claimed injuries that included a traumatic brain injury, with resulting bipolar disorder involving psychotic episodes, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other cognitive and memory-related complaints. Her husband asserted a derivative loss of consortium claim. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel presented a life care plan totaling $9 million and separately argued $11 million in non-economic damages, placing the case’s asserted exposure at a level typically associated with catastrophic-injury litigation.
Defense Strategy on Foreseeability, Duty, and Course Conditions
The golf resort defended the case on both premises liability principles and factual assertions about the course and the absence of prior similar events. Trial counsel for the resort included Miami partner Michael Kennedy of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., working alongside co-defense counsel retained by the resort’s excess carrier. The defense position was that the golf course was designed and maintained properly and that the circumstances did not give rise to a duty to warn under the facts presented.
Central to the defense was the argument that the event was not reasonably foreseeable in the manner alleged. The defense maintained that there were no previous incidents of guests being struck and injured by a golf ball, undercutting the plaintiff’s claim that the risk was known or should have been anticipated. In addition to contesting foreseeability and duty, the defense challenged the plaintiff’s theory that the resort’s design and maintenance created an unreasonably dangerous condition requiring additional warnings or modifications.
Medical Causation Dispute, Settlement Efforts, and Jury Verdict
The defense also focused on causation, disputing that the golf ball strike produced the constellation of psychiatric and cognitive symptoms the plaintiff attributed to a traumatic brain injury. According to the defense presentation at trial, medical records and expert testimony supported the position that the plaintiff’s post-incident complaints, including bipolar disorder with psychotic episodes, PTSD, cognitive decline, and memory issues, were not caused by a traumatic brain injury and instead predated the incident. This medical causation dispute was a key component of the defense response to the claimed life care costs and asserted non-economic damages.
Procedurally, the parties attempted to resolve the dispute without a verdict. Multiple settlement efforts occurred both before trial and during trial, but the plaintiff and her counsel rejected those proposals. After eight days of testimony, the jury returned a verdict finding no liability on the part of the resort, resulting in a complete defense verdict. The outcome concluded the trial-level proceedings with no recovery on the plaintiff’s negligence claims or the husband’s loss of consortium claim.
