The golf course had a duty to warn golfers of approaching dangerous weather conditions like lightning. When the assistant golf pro determined a thunderstorm was approaching, he announced over the PA system that the course was closed due to the storm and warned golfers to take shelter. However, he did not check the tee sheet, dispatch employees, or personally contact the two boys who were playing on the back nine to warn them, as required by the golf course's verbal policy. The federal trial court will likely deny the golf course's motion to dismiss, as the boys have stated a valid negligence claim.

1. MEMORANDUM
TO: Junior Associates, RWA Sections 13 and 16
FROM: Senior Partner Goering and Senior Associate Malony
RE: Brehm v. Shadow Valley Country Club, et al.
DATE: September 13, 2010
Our firm has been retained by Shadow Valley Country Cluband its affiliate, both
Arkansas enterprises,to defend a lawsuit they anticipate will be filed by the parents of
Connor Brehm. Their son was seriously injured last month when he was hit by a lightning
bolt while he was playing golf on the Shadow Valley Golf Course. The facts below are
drawn from our interview with Defendants’ representatives. Until we know more, you may
assume that these facts are true for purposes of this assignment.
On Wednesday, August 11, 2010, at approximately 2:04 pm., fifteen-year-old Connor
Brehm was struck by lightning while on the thirteenth fairway on the Shadow Valley Golf
Course, owned by Shadow Valley Country Club. The golf course islocated in Rogers,
Arkansas and is managed by Windward Golf LLC under contract with the country club.
Unfortunately, the lightning strike caused Brehm permanent brain damage, and he now
requires around-the-clock medical care. It is unlikely that he will ever fully recover from his
injuries.
Our clientsinvited minors to play the course at off-peak hours(including Wednesday
afternoons) at reduced green fees of $10.00 each. Connor Brehm and his parentsreside in
Iowa and were visiting relatives in Arkansas during the last weeks of summer vacation.Since
ConnorBrehm was only fifteen, he was not allowed to rent a golfcart. He and his cousin
Jonathan Bowen, also fifteen,were walking the course and carrying their clubs on the day of
the lightningstrike. Around noon, when Mrs. Brehm dropped the boys off at the
golfcourse,the day was clear with a crystal blue sky. National Weather Service reports
confirm that the storm system moved into the area sometime during the early afternoon.
At the time lightning struck Brehm,the assistant golf pro on duty was Cody Slack.
Like all golf pros, Mr. Slack was well aware of the dangers of lightning on a golfcourse.Mr.
Slack and the other assistant golf pros used a combination of methods to monitor the weather
forecast, including two internet sites, radar,a weather alert radio, and visual observations.At
approximately 1:30 p.m., Mr. Slack and the head golf pro determined that a thunderstorm
was approaching. At that time the storm was about ten to fifteen miles southwest of
thecourse, moving rapidly in a northeasterly direction.Mr. Slack concluded that the
approaching storm created a dangerous weather condition.
Because of the approaching storm, Mr. Slack announced over the public address
systemthat the driving range and golf course were closed and that all golfers should take
cover from the approaching storm.Mr. Slack then evacuated the driving range and the
practice putting green, and he told everyone waiting to tee off that the course was closed due
to the storm forecast.

2. By that time, the two boys were playing golf on the back nine.A neighbor whose yard
bordered the thirteenth fairwaycalled the clubhouse shortly after 2:00 p.m. to report that she
thought she had witnessed a bolt of lightning striking some golfers.Mr. Slack immediately
drovea golf cartto the location where Brehm was struck, which took him about three or four
minutes.He immediately called an ambulance. Emergency technicians were able to
resuscitate Brehm but not before he suffered permanent brain damage.
From the time Mr. Slack first realized the dangerous condition posed by the
approaching thunderstorm, herepeatedly announced over the public address system that a
dangerous storm was approaching, warning anyone still on the golf course to take cover.He
made the announcement every five minutes between 1:30 and approximately 1:55 p.m.He
also checked the tee sheet to identify any golfers still playing, but itfailed to show that
anyone was on the back nine. Consequently, Mr. Slack did not even know that the boys were
on the coursewhen he suspended play and announced that the golf course was closed.
Defendants have no written policies dealing with lightning, lightning protection, or
lightning safety. However,they claim they have a verbal policy to warn everyone on the
course about approaching lightning. Once the assistant golf pro announced the dangerous
weathercondition over the public address system, the verbal policy required him to dispatch
employees to personally contact every golfer playing on the course to warn them to take
shelter from the storm. In this case, however, Mr. Slack did not gofind the boys himself, and
he did not dispatch any other employee to do so, apparently because the tee sheet did not
show they were playing golf at the time.
Defendants do not know whether the boys heard Slack’s announcements over the
public address system, and they do not know why the tee sheet was inaccurate. However,
clubhouse records reflect that the boys paid their discounted green fees shortly after they
arrived at noon that day.
According to Mr. Slack, Laura Brooks, the staff member who tends the beverage cart
on the golf course, verbally warned the boys about the approaching storm when they were
about to tee off on the tenth hole, well before Mr. Slack began evacuating other golfers.
However, Slack was not Ms. Brooks’ supervisor, andshe was not responsible for warning
golfers about inclement weather. In fact, Mr. Slack did not even know Ms. Brooks had
spoken to the boys until afterlightning had already struck Brehm.
Brehm had only recently begun playing golf. Given the number of shots a novice
would need on each hole and the time required for walking the fairways, the boys wouldhave
required at least 45 minutes to get from the tenth hole to the location on the thirteenth
fairway where Brehm was struck by lightning. Thus, Ms. Brooks must have conversed with
the boys sometime before 1:15 p.m. Mr. Slack declared the dangerous condition at about
1:30, and Brehm was struck by lightning at 2:04. No one other than Ms. Brooks ever spoke
with the boys before lightning struck shortly after 2:00.
Plaintiffs have notified Defendants that they intend to file a complaint on their son’s
behalf alleging negligence with respect to this particular lightning storm and also with
respect to their lightning safety practices in general. Because the plaintiffs reside out of state,
please assume that they will file the complaint in federal district court invoking diversity
2

3. jurisdiction. Given the extent of Brehm’s injuries, plaintiffs should have no difficulty
pleading the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000 in damages.
Defendants did not have a written policy on lightning safety and did not display any
posters or signs warning patrons about lightning or lightning safety. Nor was there any
visual displayor verbal notice to golfers that they wouldbe informed over the public address
system of approaching lightning. Also, no lightning shelters were located anywhere on the
golf course.
In anticipation of the plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendants have asked us to research
whether or not they had a legal duty to warn the boys about the weather forecast. If they can
persuade the judge on that issue with a pre-answer motion, the complaint may be dismissed
for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Defendants are worried about
whether or not the storm warnings announced over the public address system were audible to
the boys on the back nine. The speaker system is about twenty years old, and it has not been
tested for several years. They are also concerned that their lightning safety policy might be
considered insufficient, especially given the sympathy factor favoring the plaintiffs if the
case were tried to a jury. Finally, they know they are vulnerable because the tee sheet did not
show the boys were playing the back nine at the time Mr. Slack closed the golf course and
issued the warnings.
Assignment.Using the authorities provided, please analyze whether the golf course
had a legal duty to warn the boys about the approaching thunderstorm and the risk of
lightning. Then predict how the federal trial court will rule if our clients file a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.Use only the legal authorities listed below. You are not
authorized to engage in any outside research beyond the specific authorities I have provided
you.Do not cite any cases not provided to you in the list of authorities. If you wish to rely on
secondary authorities cited by the cases provided to you, simply refer to the authority in your
discussion and then cite the opinion in which you found that reference.
Your memo should include a heading similar to the heading of this memo. Include
ONLY the heading and the Discussion section for this initial memo assignment. Use 12-
point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins. Except for the heading, please double-
space your memo and number the pages, centered at the bottom of each page. Please do not
exceed five double-spaced pages. (If longer, I will read only the first five pages.)
You may discuss the assignment and the legal authorities with other first-year
students in Professor Goering’s RWA Sections (13 or 16). You may also discuss the
assignment with Victoria Malony during her office hours. Do not discuss the assignment
with anyone else, including your other professors, roommates, parents, siblings,
relatives, friends, acquaintances, or strangers. Finally, your writing must be exclusively
yours. You may not show your written work to anyone except Victoria Malony or me.
Victoria is not authorized to edit or revise your written work, which must be exclusively your
own. You are expected to do your best work on your memo.
3

4. Legal Authorities
(Note: Short-form citations appear after each full citation.
Substitute pinpoint page reference for “xx.”)
1. Davis v. Country Club, Inc., 381 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn. App. 1963).
Davis,381 S.W.2d at xx.
2. Hames v. Tenn., 808 S.W.2d 41 (Tenn. 1991).
Hames,808 S.W.2d at xx.
3. McAuliffe v. Town of New Windsor, 577 N.Y.S.2d 942 (App. Div. 3d Dept. 1991).
McAuliffe, 577 N.Y.S.2d at xx.
4. Dykema v. Gus MackerEnters., Inc., 492 N.W.2d 472 (Mich. App. 1992).
Dykema, 492 N.W.2d at xx.
5. Leach v. Mt. Lake, 120 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 1997).
Leach, 120 F.3d at xx.
6. Maussner v. Atlantic City Country Club, 691 A.2d 826 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1997).
Maussner, 691 A.2d at xx.
7. Grace v. City of Okla., 953 P.2d 69 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997).
Grace, 953 P.2d at xx.
8. Little v. Jonesboro Country Club, 212 S.W.3d 57 (Ark. App. Div. 2005).
Little, 212 S.W.3d at xx.
9. Sall v. T’s, Inc., 136 P.3d 471 (Kan. 2006).
Sall, 136 P.3d at xx.
10. Grant v. Wakeda Campground, LLC, 631 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D. N.H. 2009).
Grant, 631 F. Supp. 2d at xx.
4