Maussner v Atlantic City Country Case Analysis

Maussner v Atlantic City Country Case Analysis
2 mn read

Case Summary

Mr. Maussner, the plaintiff, and Mrs. Colleen Maussner, the appellant filed a case against Atlantic City Country Club Inc., the defendant. The plaintiff is seeking damages for the injuries he acquired when he struck by lightning on the defendants’ golf course. On that fateful, the plaintiff had gone with his friend to play golf at the defendants’ golf course. While there playing they noticed a lightning bolt and resulted in seeking refugees to the hotel clubhouse. On his way to the clubhouse, the plaintiff was struck by the lightning (Shadiack, 1998). The plaintiff argued that the defendants did not warn him about weather conditions. Also, the plaintiff accused the defendants of the lack of an appropriate evacuation plan in case of an emergency.

Issues

The judge used the following facts to give the gives the following opinions. The golfer cause has no lightning detection system and also it doesn’t have lightning-proof shelters. Thus the course plan was to detect lightning through acquire information from weather channels and the National weather service. If the lightning was detected one of the golfers’ employees could have informed the golfers. Although, there were no preventative measures the judge stated that golfers could take refuge in the houses or trees or lay down to avoid being struck by lightning (Shadiack, 1998). Thus, the judge didn’t find anything that the club that could have prevented the situation. Hence, the highlighted lightning is an act of god.

Case analysis

The standard principle regarding the rulings made about the lightning case, judges have dismissed the case on basis that “lightning is an act of God and it cannot be attributed to any level of negligence towards the defendants.

Decision

The motion judge’s decision was informed by the fact that lightning is an act of God. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the injuries caused by the lightning. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded since the plaintiff’s arguments were inconsistent with the court findings.

Thoughts

I agree with the court decision. Thus no one should be held responsible for natural causes. The sports managers should be informed of weather conditions to avoid the occurrence of such accidents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Reading is essential for those who seek to rise above the ordinary.

MyArticles

Welcome to MyArticles, an author-oriented website. A place where words matter. Discover without further ado our countless community stories.

Build great relations

Explore all the content from MyArticle community network. Forums, Groups, Members, Posts, Social Wall and many more. You can never get tired of it!

Become a member

Get unlimited access to the best stories and articles on MyArticles, support our lovely authors and share your stories with the World.