Shin v. Ahn
California Supreme Court
165 P.3d 581 (2007)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
Johnny Shin (plaintiff), Jack Ahn (defendant), and Jeffery Frost were playing golf together. Ahn completed the twelfth hole and proceeded to the thirteenth tee box. Shin and Frost followed but took different paths: Frost used the cart path, placing him slightly behind and to the right of Ahn, while Shin took a shortcut, placing him in front of Ahn and to his left. While in this position, Shin stopped to retrieve a bottle of water and check his cell phone. Shin asserted that he and Ahn had made eye contact at some point, though he did not specify where he was positioned at that time. Ahn stated that he looked to see whether the area directly ahead of him was clear before swinging. Ahn then inadvertently pulled his tee shot to the left, striking Shin in the temple. Shin sued Ahn for negligence, claiming that he breached the duty of care owed to fellow golfers. Ahn moved for summary judgment, asserting that the primary-assumption-of-risk doctrine barred the claim. The trial court denied Ahn’s motion, and the court of appeals affirmed, finding that the primary-assumption-of-risk doctrine did not apply. The California Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Corrigan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
