Under English law, the law on which US law is based, to prove liability it is necessary to establish the following three things:
1. The person who is being sued had a duty of care towards the injured party, i.e. he or she was responsible for taking all reasonable steps to prevent injury to the injured party. In golfing terms every golfer has a duty of care to others using the golf course.
2. The person being sued breached that duty of care, i.e. they behaved in a reckless and negligent manner without care for the safety of others. For this to be proved it would be necessary to establish that the golfer didn't take reasonable care when making his shot, e.g. he may have hit a ball when the group in front we're still in range; in this circumstance injury was foreseeable and therefore the golfer would likely to be deemed to have breached his duty of care.
3. An injury or loss was suffered due to the breach in the duty of care.
The fact that somebody was injured is not by itself necessarily grounds for compensation. Additionally the law does not require individuals to be infallible. A miss-hit shot is not an act of negligence; it was accidental and any injuries resulting were not foreseeable. Everybody stepping on to a golf course assumes the risk that they may be hit by a ball that is miss-hit; that's just golf and nobody should expect to compensated in such circumstances.
If on the other hand somebody recklessly hits a ball without regard to other golfers on the course and somebody gets struck and injured, then I believe there are reasonable grounds to pursue a claim for compensation.