The club apparently allows single rider golf carts everywhere else on the course, but sited safety concerns for use in the bunkers and damage concerns for use on the greens. Lobel alleges that the single rider carts do not damage the course; he alleges that he has been allowed to use these carts at other courses “throughout the United States” and that he has been allowed to drive onto tee boxes, greens and bunkers. Lobel mentions access to “bunkers” and “full access” several times in his Complaint. The ADA does not address bunkers although it does address tees, fairways, carts paths and greens. State and local laws in some locations may include requirements beyond federal law.
Although Woodland is a “private club,” the plaintiff alleges that it is actually a public accommodation and subject to the ADA and other laws because it solicits public use of its facilities. Lobel alleges that “they host, sponsor, solicit and allow members of the general public access to the club and golf course for charity and corporate golf events, private banquets, corporate gatherings, private parties and weddings.” He states that through its public website the club solicits corporate outings, weddings and other events for nonmembers. The plaintiff alleges that by “soliciting business from non-members into and onto the premises for ‘commercial purposes’’’ the club is a “public” entity and thus subject to the ADA. Therefore, because the ADA is applicable, he alleges the club must allow him access on his SoloRider or similar golf cart. It is not clear from the complaint whether Lobel has arranged for his own carts but the Complaint expressly alleges that, as a public accommodation, Woodland must provide the “specialized handicapped golf cart.”
Just as the Marriott case a few years ago addressed the “specialized handicapped golf cart” issue for public facilities, lawyers are already talking publicly about the impact this case will have on other “private” clubs. Some in the industry have weighed in that these golf carts are specially engineered to distribute the forces and they actually impact the course less than one bad golfer! Others argue that the club rightly evaluates the potential risks—property damage and bodily injury. Depending on the club’s location, these risks can be mitigated to greater and lesser degrees with a proper release agreement signed by the golfer. A release might be more effective in cases where the golfer is injured himself, but there would likely be factual disputes if the club claimed the cart caused damage to the golf course.
One important lesson must be noted. For those clubs that do operate in a purely private manner, it can choose to a much greater degree how and to what extent it will provide a warm welcome to its members and guests who have physical challenges. If Woodland (or any other club) has failed to protect its purely private status, it may have lost the opportunity to choose.
This is a stark reminder of why we always remind private clubs of the risk of not following the guidelines for “purely private” clubs. Revenue from a few weddings will not cover the cost of this type of lawsuit.
Robyn Stowell is a member of Sherman & Howard and is the head of the firm’s Golf, Resorts and Private Clubs Practice Group. She can be reached at [email protected] or 480‑624‑2736.