Day on Torts
The defendant city was immune from suit under the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute for the plaintiff’s personal injuries incurred while he was playing golf on a city golf course.
In Bates v. City of Chattanooga, No. E2024-00857-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), the plaintiff fell down steps while playing golf on a city golf course. He filed this personal injury suit, and the defendant city filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute (“TRUS”). The trial court granted the motion, ruling that golf was comparable to the activities listed in the TRUS and that no exception applied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
“The TRUS provides an affirmative defense to a landowner when a person is injured while engaging in a recreational activity on the landowner’s property.” (internal citation omitted). Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-102(a) includes a list of activities which qualify for immunity under the TRUS, specifically mentioning “hunting, fishing, …water sports, …hiking, sightseeing,…skeet and trap shooting, sporting clay, shooting sports, and target shooting, …off-road vehicle riding” and others. Based on the language of the statute, the Supreme Court has “stated that the list of activities under Section 102 is neither exclusive nor exhaustive,” and activities that are “comparable to those listed” are also included. (internal citation omitted). Various cases have found attending a concert in a park, swimming and diving in a pool, and playing on a playground to fall within the TRUS.
In this case, the plaintiffs “emphasize[d] the nature-oriented character of Section 102 listed activities…to argue that golf does not belong in the same category.” Defendant city, on the other hand, asserted that golf was not substantially different from target shooting, a listed activity. The Court agreed with the defendant.
Regarding whether golf fell within the TRUS, the Court wrote:
While a rifle is used for target shooting and a club is used for golf, the basic goal of both activities is the same. In both golf and target shooting, the recreational user attempts to hit a target. In the case of golf, the target is the hole. In addition, golf typically involves significant walking over a large landscape, or up to a tee box as in this case. This fairly implicates hiking, a Section 102 listed activity. Golf carts may also be used, in which case the recreational user engages in off-road vehicle riding, another Section 102 listed activity. Thus, golf bears key similarities to Section 102 listed activities target shooting, hiking, sightseeing, and off-road vehicle riding. Furthermore, golf is a leisure activity in a similar vein to swimming in a pool, bicycling, or watching a concert in a park.
While the plaintiffs argued that this interpretation would “expand immunity under the TRUS beyond all reason,” the Court stated that policy arguments were “better addressed to the General Assembly[.]” The Court thus held that “golf was an unenumerated recreational activity covered by the TRUS.”
The finding of immunity under the TRUS, and summary judgment based on the statute, was affirmed. This is an interesting opinion, as it holds that golf, which is a widely played sport, may fall within the immunity granted by the TRUS.
This opinion was released two months after oral arguments.