It should be left to a jury to determine whether an inexperienced golfer may be liable to his friend, another novice, for striking him in the face while the two were at a driving range.

A three-judge Appellate Division panel, in an unpublished opinion issued Feb. 9, said a jury should decide whether the defendant, Chance O'Neill, acted recklessly when he swung his club and struck his friend and plaintiff, Philip Spataro. Both were 16 years old at the time.

“We are satisfied there exists a material act in dispute concerning whether O'Neill made appropriate observations prior to swinging the golf club consonant with the attendant risk of significant injury to a bystander,” said Judges Jose Fuentes, Ellen Koblitz and Thomas Manahan.

Spataro was injured on Aug. 21, 2012, when he and O'Neill went to the driving range at the Eagleswood Amusement Park in West Creek. The facility has about 30 separate stalls at its driving range. Spataro had never golfed before, and O'Neill had handled a golf club only twice before, according to the ruling.

Spataro, the ruling said, asked O'Neill how to hit a golf ball. Both were in the same stall at the time. Notices had been posted warning patrons about the dangers of being in close proximity to other patrons, urging them to maintain a safe distance.

The ruling quoted O'Neill as saying: “All right. Get back.”

At that point, he swung the club and struck Spataro in the face. Spataro sustained what the court said were significant injuries, including scarring and vision impairment.

Spataro sued Eagleswood and O'Neill, claiming negligence. Eagleswood's carrier, T.H.E. Insurance Co., eventually paid Spataro $7,500 to settle claims against the facility. The negligence claim against O'Neill remained open.

Ocean County Superior Court Judge Robert Brenner dismissed the claim against O'Neill on summary judgment, saying the state Supreme Court's 1994 ruling in Crawn v. Campo required that in cases of recreational sports injuries, there is a heightened standard of care, and defendants must act intentionally or recklessly to be held liable.

In its decision, the appeals court, reversing dismissal, said it was up to the trier of fact whether O'Neill was acting recklessly when he swung the club without first checking if Spataro was out of the way. “A jury should decide whether O'Neill's swinging of the club, without certainty as to Spataro's location, was in reckless disregard of that risk.”

But the panel said Brenner got the standard right: “We conclude, therefore, that to determine whether a player should be held civilly liable to another player for an injury suffered while that player is engaged in this recreational activity, the trier of fact must apply the heightened standard of recklessness or intentional conduct our Supreme Court applied in Crawn.”

The court rejected Spataro's argument “that the application of the heightened standard to the recreational activity of practicing golf represents a novel extension of the class of activities subject to the heightened standard.”

“To the contrary, our determination is in accord with and embodies the persuasive dual policy considerations of promotion of recreational activity and avoidance of a flood of litigation associated with that activity as enunciated in Crawn” and the state Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Schick v. Ferolito.

Spataro's attorney on the appeal, John Devlin of Lawrenceville's Devlin, Cittadino & Shaw, said he is prepared to return to the trial court on the liability issue.

O'Neill's attorney, Kevin Sheehy of Leyden, Capotorto, Ritacco & Corrigan in Toms River, did not return a call seeking comment.