The family of a Pennsylvania golf teaching professional who died when a tree fell onto a cart barn at the club where he worked.
Justin Riegel was working as the director of golf at Philmont Country Club in the north suburbs of Philadelphia when a storm rolled in and he took cover in the barn.
Riegel had previously been an assistant pro at Aronimink, Wilmington Country Club and Gulph Mills, then moved to French Creek Golf Club as head pro. In 2015, he was selected as the Section PGA Assistant Golf Professional of the Year.
Riegel’s son was born just weeks after his death and his widow, Kate Hannon, sued the course and the management companies involved and was awarded $9.1 million.
According to a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the suit went to trial and hung on a few facts.
Two key points of contention in the trial were the sequence of events that led Riegel to be at the cart barn at the moment he was killed on June 3, 2020, and whether the golf club could be held liable as his employer.
A storm was moving toward Huntingdon Valley, and Philmont suspended golf play midmorning. Riegel, who was 38 at the time, helped clearing carts off the course, according to legal filings by his estate’s lawyers, and was struck by the tree when parking a cart in the barn. Had the course been cleared earlier, Riegel wouldn’t have been in danger, they argued.
“Concert Golf didn’t create the storm,” said David Kwass, a partner with Saltz, Mongeluzzi, and Bendesky, who represented Riegel’s estate. “But they could have known about it earlier and they could have prepared for it.”
The club’s lawyers insisted that Riegel was in the barn to simply watch the storm with a colleague, but the jury found otherwise.
The jury determined that Philmont could have done more to prepare for the storm, and that the entity could be sued in Riegel’s death.
After a two-week trial, the jury deliberated for about one day, Kwass said. On Aug. 29, they reached a verdict finding all three defendants equally responsible for Riegel’s death and awarded his son $9.1 million.
Because the parties entered an agreement that guaranteed monetary compensation regardless of the verdict and limited the amount the verdict could reach, the jury’s decision can’t be appealed.