Fell Out of a Golf Cart Drinking Water: No Caddie Fault, but the Golf Course Still Pays
A golfer who lost her balance and fell from a moving golf cart while drinking water has won damages against the golf course operator — even though the caddie driving the cart was found to have done nothing wrong. The court found the course liable as the operator of a vehicle with inherent structural safety risks. Here are the key points.
Issue
Where a passenger falls from a moving golf cart through her own loss of balance — with no fault on the part of the caddie driver — can the golf course operator still be held liable for the resulting injuries?
Facts
- In May 2024 around 8:00 AM, A was seated in the passenger seat of a caddie-driven golf cart at a course in Goyang, Gyeonggi Province. While the cart was traveling along a flat, straight section of the course at approximately 10-something kilometers per hour, A let go of the handhold to drink water, lost her balance, and fell out of the cart.
- Immediately after she fell, the cart’s rear wheels passed over both of her ankles, causing a fracture of her left ankle and a fracture of her right fibula.
- A sued both the golf course operator and the insurer of the caddies’ professional liability insurance policy.
Court Decision
- Seoul Central District Court (Civil Division 37, Judge Lee Hyo-jin) issued a partial judgment in A’s favor on July 22, 2026, ordering the golf course operator to pay approximately ₩3.44 million. The claims against the insurer were dismissed.
On caddie fault, the court found none. There was no evidence the caddie had made a sudden start without confirming A was seated. The cart was traveling normally when A released the handhold. Once the caddie became aware A had fallen, stopping the cart quickly enough to prevent the wheels from passing over her ankles was not realistically possible. The professional liability insurance claim, which was premised on the caddie’s negligence, therefore failed.
On golf course operator liability, the court took a different approach. Under Korea’s Automobile Damage Compensation Security Act, the operator of a vehicle is liable for injuries arising from its operation, even in the absence of driver negligence. The court found the golf course operator, as the entity that operated the cart and deployed it on the course, fell within this framework.
Critically, the court found the cart itself had inherent structural safety risks: it had no seatbelts and no doors on either side, meaning the risk of a passenger falling out was built into the vehicle from the outset. The operation of this structurally unsafe vehicle was causally connected to the injury.
However, the court reduced the operator’s liability to 30%, reflecting A’s own contributory negligence in releasing the handhold to drink water while the cart was in motion.
Key Takeaways
- Golf cart operators can be held liable as vehicle operators under the Automobile Damage Compensation Security Act, even where the caddie driving the cart was not at fault.
- The structural characteristics of the cart — absence of seatbelts and doors — are relevant to establishing the causal connection between cart operation and the risk of passenger ejection. A cart designed without fall-prevention features carries an inherent risk that the operator assumes responsibility for.
- Caddie fault and operator liability are independent legal questions. A finding of no negligence by the driver does not automatically defeat a claim against the operator of the vehicle.
- Contributory negligence by the passenger — here, releasing the handhold to drink while the cart was moving — significantly reduces but does not eliminate operator liability. The court applied a 70/30 split in favor of the operator.
- Professional liability insurance for caddies covers caddie negligence specifically — where the caddie is found not negligent, that policy provides no recovery.
Why This Matters
Golf carts are a largely unregulated category of vehicle in Korea from a passenger safety standpoint, and this ruling identifies a structural liability gap that course operators should take seriously. The absence of seatbelts and side doors — standard features absent from most golf carts — was treated not as an unfortunate design choice but as an inherent risk for which the operator bears legal responsibility. For golf course operators and their insurers, the decision is a prompt to review both cart safety specifications and the scope of their liability coverage. For recreational golfers, it is a reminder that the handhold exists for a reason — and that contributory negligence findings in these cases can be substantial.
Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=224979
KLAWGURU.COM 
Leave a comment