TRENTON, N.J. -- The next time you try sneaking an extra shot on the golf course, better hope it sails fair and true. If your surreptitious do-over goes astray and bonks a fellow golfer, the courts of the state of New Jersey might brand you a reckless menace.
A state appeals court has ruled that a golfer can be held responsible for any injuries if others nearby do not get ample warning. In other words, even bellowing "Fore!" after you hit what is known as a mulligan -- an additional shot, usually from the tee, that magically leaves no trace on the scorecard -- would not automatically spare you from the courts if your ball goes seriously amok.On Wednesday, an appellate court in New Jersey ruled that an injured golfer could go ahead with a lawsuit against John Ferolito, an iced tea magnate whose errant shot in a 1994 game hit the golfer square between the eyes and broke his nose. Whether the shot was a mulligan, of course, is in dispute.
"I don't think that it is a bad day for duffers, but I do think it is a bad decision for duffers," said James M. DeMarzo, Ferolito's lawyer.
"Whenever you take to a playing field, whether it is a baseball field or a football field or the golf links, you are subject to certain risks inherent to the sport itself," he said. "We don't want to have the door open to litigation every time someone gets hit on the head."
But Richard M. Chisholm, the lawyer for Jeffrey Schick, the man hit by the golf ball at the East Orange Golf Course, a public course in Millburn, N.J., disagrees that the case could have such far reach. He thinks only an inappropriate playing style might lead to damage cases, not randomly crowning someone with a wayward shot.
"Anticipating that someone is going to hit a mulligan at point-blank range is not a standard part of the game," he said.
The court agreed with that reasoning, ruling that "hitting an unannounced and unexpected mulligan from the tee after all members of the foursome have teed off creates such an unanticipated risk to the other members of the foursome, from which they cannot protect themselves, that it cannot be considered an inherent or integral part of the game," wrote Judge Leonard Arnold for a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
The lawyers involved said that since sports injury cases are generally decided under state law, it is impossible to assess what impact the case might have on golfers across the nation.
But to take at least one infamous golfer who has been know to take his fair share (at least on a presidential scale) of mulligans, there was no sense that the ruling would affect President Clinton's game.
"His use of mulligans has been exaggerated in the press, but he certainly reserves the right to use one from time to time," said Jake Siewert, a White House spokesman. "The president is pretty vocal, so when he makes a bad shot he usually lets people know."