(dissenting). The majority affirms a circuit court order that granted defendant’s summary disposition motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). I would reverse.
On May 8 or May 18, 1991, plaintiff and defendant were playing golf in a foursome at the Rochester Hills Golf Club, Oakland County, Michigan. *229Plaintiff, Frederick Schmidt, was paired in a motorized or mechanized golf cart with Ken Kraus and defendant Robert Youngs was paired in another cart with Earl Giraldi. An injury occurred on the first hole of play. All players had hit their tee shots and all players save defendant had hit their second shots down the fairway toward the green and were proceeding to make their third and hopefully final shots to the green. Defendant’s second shot was off the fairway to the right and short. Defendant’s cart was driven to the area where defendant’s ball had landed. Plaintiff drove his cart up to the front of the green but off in the rough so that the rear of plaintiff’s cart was backed up to a tree. Defendant was away, being farther from the green than plaintiff, and it was therefore defendant’s turn to hit. When defendant struck the ball, it hit plaintiff.
Plaintiff claims that defendant initially warned plaintiff that defendant was going to hit his shot but then waited approximately three minutes before actually taking his shot without making a second or more timely warning. Plaintiff also claims that defendant had a propensity to slice or shank the ball and that defendant while twenty to seventy yards away from the green and thirty yards away from plaintiff, shanked the ball causing it to go from its intended direction toward the green to a direction toward the plaintiff. Defendant claims that he not only warned plaintiff before he took the shot, but again warned him after he hit the shot and saw the ball heading in plaintiff’s direction. Both parties attached deposition testimony to their appellate brief to support their divergent claims, but because neither party provided these exhibits to the trial court for its consideration, the exhibits cannot be considered by this Court on appeal. Harkins v Dep’t of Natural *230Resources, 206 Mich App 317, 323; 520 NW2d 653 (1994); Nationwide Mutual Ins Co v Quality Builders, Inc, 192 Mich App 643, 648; 482 NW2d 474 (1992).
The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting summary disposition, that is, whether on the basis of the pleadings alone plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. MCR 2.116(C)(8), (G)(5). For purposes of deciding defendant’s motion under MCR 216(C)(8), the trial court had only plaintiffs complaint and defendant’s answer to review. The majority has gone far beyond the four corners of those pleadings and has, I believe, inappropriately reinvigorated the doctrine of assumption of risk in Michigan. I cannot agree that, as a matter of law, a golfer hit by a ball struck by his playing partner has no cause of action for injuries because his playing partner, the striker of the ball, has no duty to warn of his intention to strike the ball. I think peremptory disposition was premature in this matter.
I believe the circuit court erred when it found:
(1) Defendant exercised reasonable care before he struck his golf ball; and
(2) That the risk of coming in contact with a wayward ball is a risk foreseeable during a game of golf.
Before its ruling, the court confused the issues of pleading with issues of proof and injected the element of assumption of risk. The court stated:
. I’m of the opinion that — I don’t know whether Michigan — Michigan doesn’t have the assumption of risk anymore, do they? ... I don’t think so, but it’s almost like an assumption of risk when you get involved in certain sports. It appears to me ... if *231in fact he were in the line of the shot wherever that may be or reasonably within the line of the shot, or if he were in a different foursome and he was unaware that a person was behind him hitting the ball. And I think there’s a separate duty that may be owed to participants in sports as there would be if he were — as I said, either hitting a golf ball in his backyard or something, or even if your client was playing in another foursome.
But I happen to agree that the case of Thompson v McNeill [53 Ohio St 3d 102; 559 NE2d 705 (1990)], it was cited by the defendant, the Ohio case, and it would appear to me that under the facts of this case, the fact that your client was in the same foursome, went ahead of the other two, knowing that by doing so he was placing himself maybe in some danger, was not in the line of the shot period but was off to the side, in fact behind a [tree].
The principal questions for the circuit court were not whether defendant exercised reasonable care, whether plaintiff was a member of the same foursome, whether the parties were in the line of sight, or whether they were on the fairway, in the rough, or behind a tree. The question was whether plaintiff had stated a cause of action sufficient to survive a motion for summary disposition for failure to state a claim, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). The factual context involved participants in the same foursome playing recreational golf. Plaintiff was struck in the eye by a ball hit by defendant, considerably off line, after a prolonged wait. Plaintiff claimed inadequate warning by defendant. The pivotal question is whether plaintiff could recover under principles of ordinary negligence in Michigan or whether plaintiff could recover only if intentional, reckless, or wilful misconduct precipitated the injury. I believe the trial court inappropriately decided questions of fact and prematurely *232applied the "rules of the game” of golf, which were not supported by any evidentiary basis.
Plaintiffs complaint alleged only ordinary negligence, not gross negligence or wilful or wanton misconduct, but plaintiff also alleged breach of the duties of golfing conduct on the part of defendant and plaintiff should have an opportunity to present to a trier of fact the parameters of such duties and how they were breached, including, but not limited to: (a) whether recreational golfers are governed by any understandable or applicable rules of the game, either in general or specifically at the club in question, which was, in this case, the Rochester Hills Golf Club; (b) whether there was a duty on the part of a member of a foursome to warn another member of his intention to hit the ball; (c) whether that duty expired, lapsed, or was satisfied or breached if, after giving such warning, the defendant took two to five minutes to hit his ball; (d) if there are line of sight or line of flight perimeters or parameters with regard to such duties or obligations; (e) whether there is a zone of danger applicable to recreational golfers in the same foursome; and (f) whether there are degrees of due care that vary for a known errant slicer or shanker to avoid hitting the ball if he knows or should have known that other golfers, including members of his own foursome, are in the zone of danger peculiarly applicable to his penchant for errantry.
This motion was not argued under MCR 2.116(C) (10), but was argued and decided on the basis of MCR 2.116(C)(8), whether plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. I do not think that either the trial court or the majority of this Court should decide without expert testimony or other predicate what rules of golf are applicable to recreational players. Cf. *233Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425; 254 NW2d 759 (1977), and its progeny. I believe it in error to decide, as a matter of law, that defendant was under no obligation to the plaintiff to avoid negligent conduct in the context of this complaint.
The Ohio case that persuaded the trial court, Thompson v McNeill, 53 Ohio St 3d 102; 559 NE2d 705 (1990), relied heavily on assumption of risk precedent and rationale for which there is no applicable analogous precedent in Michigan. The Thompson opinion itself does not set forth the exact summary disposition prerequisites, but it was the equivalent of a motion under MCR 2.116(0(10) in Michigan. All members of the foursome in Thompson were deposed and the dispositional facts discerned therefrom. The decision was not based on the pleadings. Thompson is not precedential and should not be persuasive.
I would reverse.