In the face of a challenge to the Act as special legislation favoring the owners of major league baseball parks, the Act was found to be constitutional three years after it was enacted.
Similarly, spectators and fellow players at golfing events have little to complain about when injured by errant golf balls. A golfer who was hit and injured by another golfer’s hooked ball complained the other golfer either failed to properly swing his club, failed to maintain a proper outlook or failed to give her proper warning of his misguided shot by yelling “Fore!” The Illinois Appellate Court reasoned since:
…even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional ‘hook’ or ‘slice’ it cannot be said that the risk of a mishit golf ball is a fully preventable occurrence. To the contrary, even with the utmost concentration and ‘tedious preparation’ that often accompanies a golfer’s shot, there is no guarantee that the ball will be lofted onto the correct path. For that reason, we have held that the mere fact that a golf ball did not travel in the intended direction does not establish a viable negligence claim. To provide an actionable theory of liability, a person injured by a mishit golf ball must affirmatively show that the golfer failed to exercise due care by adducing proof, for example, that the golfer ‘aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm’. It is common knowledge, at least among players, that many bad shots must result although every stroke is delivered with the best possible intention and without any negligence whatever. Many of us can vouch for the wisdom of such reasoning.