[corey miller]

Does anyone know where there is a good article that addresses the concept that more safety may be provided for golfers by cutting down trees as "safety barriers"?  

Dunlap's wonderful interview's on this site do not help in this regard. Thanks.

[Dunlop_White]

Corey,

Do rows of midget evergreens dividing holes really protect golfers? Larger hardwoods may help, but aren't golfers just as susceptible to the ricochet? The point being that there is a false sense of security associated with trees, which separate holes.

A good argument is that open, unobstructed site-lines can create a visual awareness or consciousness between groups, where golfers can easily be spotted, judge when to hit and not to hit, and forewarn others of an errant shot. Normally, golfers can't always forewarn neighboring groups of an impending shot when they are obscured by trees and therefore cannot be seen.

Just an argument that, in so far as I know, has not held up in courts, in the brief case history that I've read.

[corey miller]

Thanks Dunlop.  This echos what you said in the interview on this site.  I was wondering if there were a substantial article written about this that can be presented to a green committee?  I know the one paragraph below pretty much says everything but, I could use more

[David Sneddon]

Corey:

You might want to point your green Committee to study links courses.  No trees at all.

Another option would be a disclaimer at the first tee:
"No trees - play at your own risk"
which is similar to the sign at TOC for pedestrians crossing the course:
"Danger - Golf being played"*

*not an exact quote but close enough.

[corey miller]

I want to get rid of some of the trees for asthetic,strategic reasons.  The knee jerk reaction is always "safety".  Why put a warning conceding that trees provide for more safety?

As you can see, I have an agenda.

[Jim Thompson]

Corey,

I've seen this pitch work on a couple of greens committees.  Here goes…

In the recent years the manager, pro, and membership have come to regarding safety on hole x.  The concern is the number of errant shots coming from position y and endangering and creating a number of close calls for players on x.  I propose that we remove some trees on y for three reasons:
1.   To provide a sight line for players on x so that those who are prone to hitting misguided shots to y can at least see if they are creating danger before playing their shot.  After all, he who strikes the ball is legally responsible for its flight.
2.   To provide a level of awareness for players on y so they, in the event those on x have little regard for their safety, can take appropriate action to defend themselves(take cover, move) in the event x is being played by a party that has little regard for their safety.  At least they can see it coming.
3.   To minimize material that may dampen any cry of fore putting player on y at risk and limiting his ability to take action for safety sake.

Cheers!

JT

Oh- as for signs on the first tee.  The best I've seen is one that reminds players they are liable for any damages caused from striking their ball and its subsequent ball flight.

[BCrosby]

There seems to be a post on liability issues about once a month.

To repeat, there are remarkably few cases that hold architects liable for harm done by reason of errant golf shots.

(Insurance companies must be rolling out a parade of horror stories to the architecture community. It sounds like people are reacting they way the insurers want them to. They are buying more policies.)

The concept of assumption of risk is alive and well in most jurisdictions. If you elect to play golf, you also elect to assume the risk of being hit by errant shots. That's just the way it goes when you play golf. That's not me talking, that's how most courts see it.

Dunlop makes an interesting point. If you cut down trees and you get a better view of the play around you on other holes, doesn't that - in effect - strengthen the assumption of risk defense. I think it might. I would sure as heck use it if involved in a case.

But to repeat myself, there just aren't many such cases anyway. It should not be something that drives design decisions.

Bob

[Dunlop_White]

Oh, I see. Go to the Donald Ross Society website and take a look at the new Restoration Guidelines, a useful roadmap. Specifically, look at the sections subtitled "Archival Work" and "Cultivating Membership Support", and see if you cannot apply this to your situation.

http://www.donaldrosssociety.org/MEMBERS/RestorationGuideline.htm

 

[Mark_Fine]

Corey,
Our architecture column in Golf Tips Magazine's (I think it will be the August issue) is titled - Tree Times: Architects and Arborists.  We talk about the merits of removing trees to "improve saftey".  We also talk about a number of courses that have done just this.
Mark

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I just did a quick google and came up with 2 law firms that handle golf liability cases:

www.golflawyer.com

www.floydlaw.com

At my former club, I did an opinion letter for club ownership concerning their potential liability for errant tee shots to an adjacent green. To dismiss potential liability on the basis of "assumption of risk" is not a good idea as most states have adopted comparative negligence. If there is a serious enough injury and a deep pocket defendant, the claim will be made. Many architects have a substantial side business as expert witnesses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()