[Peter Goss]

For a variety of reasons, none the least litigation, the issue  of player safety in design of courses must be addressed.Yet not a lot seems to be written on the subject or discussed in this forum.

The issue is particularly pertinent to golf course renovation when holes may be lengthened to bring into range other greens or when trees that may have guarded other fairways are removed. Indeed "safety" is sometimes used as an argument not to renovate or restore to a design pre new equipment/long balls.

Do golf architects or governing bodies have a set of guidelines that should/must be adhered to? eg distance between green/ next tee, "reasonable" angles between tee and nearby greens. And is the prevailing view such that removal of trees may indeed make the golf course safer as players on adjacent fairways may be spotted and warned more easily?

[brad_miller]

I don't believe there are any hard fast rules, how about common sense! I suspect more planted trees 1950-1980's have been left on golf courses with safety being the reason both true and untrue. Second would be the famous 3d hazard.
Your point about visability and line of sight is a good one. Maybe there is a need for archies to label certain trees in there master plans that memberships might feel are there for safety reasons but don't serve that purpose and may infact create there own safety issue.
Finally we must remember that most memberships have grow up playing with all these trees, most believe they are good fair hazards, its only through the study, reading, playing and seeing old pictures of the classics that minds will begin to change. (or major articles in important golf mags)
Shackelford's "Golden Age" has many great old pics, but how many copies have ever been sold!!

Maybe clubs should consider the creation of a golf book  archie collection to be shared with its membership, most of the great books could be acquired for under $1000, seems like money well spent by green committee.

[Jeff_McDowell]

I believe the reason safety doesn't come up much on this forum is because it's boring, and can stifle creativity.

There are no hard and fast rules. You have to develop your own guidelines you feel are defensable in court.

However, Hurdzan's "Golf Course Arch" and Muirhead and Rando's "Golf Course Development and Real Estate" provide explicity guidelines that work pretty good for most situations.

What I've been told by our lawyers is that a lawsuit boils down to expert witnesses giving their opinion about the safety of a design.

I have heard lots of amazing stories about safety related law suits. Unfortunately, I can't remember any.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

How old are you laddie?  

Peter,

As someone on this site pointed out, there are actually far fewer lawsuits about safety than most would have you believe.  It's just that we hear about the ones that do happen, and get a bit fearful.

As Jeff alluded, lawsuits come down to expert witnesses.  Most architects believe that a safety standard published in a book is a bad thing, because a witness could come in and prove, that your design is one inch short of a printed standard, and you may be liable, even if the situation actually makes sense otherwise and is safe.

ASGCA thought about putting out safety standards in the 70's, but were advised against by attornies for reasons above.  The last time we met with European architects, they were hot to do the same thing (in 2000) but we couldn't talk them out of it.  Maybe someone over there could get you a copy.

Most architects do start with standards about in line with Rando or Hurdzan's though.  The more interesting aspect to me is not pure separation, but angles of play.  There are certain zones, usually about 15 degrees each side of intended line of play where most shots land.  I have long contended that some of the genius of Ross routings can't be replicated today, because he was not afraid to put a tee adjacent to fairway landing zone while creating his "fan shaped" routings.  The tendency today is to line up tees and greens a bit more to keep high concentration zones like tees away from critical areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

How old are you laddie?  

Peter,

As someone on this site pointed out, there are actually far fewer lawsuits about safety than most would have you believe.  It's just that we hear about the ones that do happen, and get a bit fearful.

As Jeff alluded, lawsuits come down to expert witnesses.  Most architects believe that a safety standard published in a book is a bad thing, because a witness could come in and prove, that your design is one inch short of a printed standard, and you may be liable, even if the situation actually makes sense otherwise and is safe.

ASGCA thought about putting out safety standards in the 70's, but were advised against by attornies for reasons above.  The last time we met with European architects, they were hot to do the same thing (in 2000) but we couldn't talk them out of it.  Maybe someone over there could get you a copy.

Most architects do start with standards about in line with Rando or Hurdzan's though.  The more interesting aspect to me is not pure separation, but angles of play.  There are certain zones, usually about 15 degrees each side of intended line of play where most shots land.  I have long contended that some of the genius of Ross routings can't be replicated today, because he was not afraid to put a tee adjacent to fairway landing zone while creating his "fan shaped" routings.  The tendency today is to line up tees and greens a bit more to keep high concentration zones like tees away from critical areas.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
What is a fan shaped routing?

Who is normally sued in these cases the architect or the club or the offending golfer or all three? Who is responsible in a restoration when the original architect has been dead for many years? What if the trees are lost thru natural forces -- who has liability? Doesn't the golfer accept a certain risk in teeing off, just as a skier risks injury whenever heads down a hill?  When I was a boy I was struck in the head by a wayward shot and haven't been the same since -- do I have a case or is there a statute of limitations?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

You aren't suggesting that your preference for classic architecture is the result of being hit in the head with a golf ball......are you?

.......didn't they say "Good Doctor"?

[BCrosby]

I had a summer associate look into the issue last year.  There are  remarkably few cases involving architect liability.  The usual target is the course operator.

As I recall, there were two reported cases involving archtiects that we found, one in CA., one in Maine.  The case in CA was dismissed for statute of limitation reasons (the course was designed in the 1920's).  In Maine the plaintiff's expert was a professor of sports recreation at U of Maine who gave an opinion that paralell fairway centerlines were "unreasonably" close, thus dangerous to players.  The judge ruled for the architect.

Most courts give a lot of weight to the concept of assumption of risk.  If you are playing golf, you should expect errant shots to come your way.  A fairly high burden for a plaintiff to overcome.

I have heard there are some pending cases out there.  No doubt there are/were other cases that were settled and not reported.  No doubt insurance companies have an interest in making a bigger deal about this kind of liability than may be necessary.  And no doubt it ought to be a consideration.

But, by and large, I agree with Jeff.  Given normal (whatever the hell that means) course layouts, architects have much bigger issues to worry about.

Like, maybe, designing beautiful, strategic courses that will be enjoyed by golfers until the end of time.

Bob

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
It's quite possible - a fairway wood from 200+ yards. There are a handful of gentlemen - I'll be producing a list later - who I recommend undergo a similar treatment.

Bob
Based on what you found, I wonder if there might be too much consideration given to it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I'm not sure who coined the phrase of fan shaped routing, but it refers to Ross' habit of bringing four holes in and out of a corner of the property to get them going in all directions.  The tees and greens are tightly bunched, and the holes go out in all directions, similar to a Chinese fan that expands like from a central point.  

Don't know if that makes sense to a guy who's been hit in the head with a golf ball.  I took a similar hit, and decided to be a golf course architect.  People assume  architects are goofy anyway, so what better job to cover it up?

My take on court cases is that the golfer assumes risk in playing golf unless he can prove that the design of the course unreasonably put him/her in danger.  Something like crossing fairways would be easy to prove, I assume.  I have heard of cases where cart paths come around a blind corner into common play zones leading to lawsuits, as another example.

Too close together?  I defended one case by showing aerial photos of all the most famous courses in the area, which naturally were older, and tighter.  The jury seemed to buy the argument "if it's okay for that club, it's okay for this" over technical arguments about feet of separation or angles of play, which they don't understand.

The club must prove that the "preponderance" of golf shots shouldn't land in a given area.  That is a very loose definition.  One a day? One a year? However, even if a player is the first one hit in the fifty year existence of the club he may still sue, and whoever is involved (to answer the question specifically, usually everyone gets sued) still bears the cost of defending themselves, regardless of verdict.  That is an unexpected and unbudgeted expense for most small design firms, and very difficult financially.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Forget strategy.  Like it or not, safety is the most important consideration when building a golf course.

There are no hard-and-fast industry standards, but there certainly are a number of guidelines or "unwritten standards" that most architects seem to gravitate towards.

The 15 degree rule mentionned earlier is a good one.  We also use separation distances.  60 metres from centre-line to property line or tee at the landing area.  50 metres from centre of green to property line or adjoining tee.  80 metres between centre-lines themselves.

Unlike what Jeff said (although I might have misunderstood), we like to offset our holes (and thus our landing areas) rather than lining them up, especially when land is tight.  To illustrate, if the tee area is the base of a "V", the best way to tightly place another tee (another "V") would be in the opposite direction, like so: V^ , with landing areas opposite tees.

Other important factors influencing safety are trees, which increase safety.  Others are elevation changes (down=more dangerous, up=safer), wind direction, and slice-side vs hook-side.

The actual design of the hole also has a dramatic influence on safety.  If you're gonna have a lake (or any other hazard) on once side of a golf hole, you'd better make sure you've got a bunch of room on the opposite side where golfers will bail out (on purpose or out of subconscious fear).  Conversely, if you want to keep golfers away from homes, stick a lake between them ($$$ adds value to the lots as well $$$).

Mounds are dangerous.  You can't see beyond them, and they sure won't stop a power slice.

Just some toughts, anyway...

[John_McMillan]

Perry Maxwell designed the course at Iowa State University.  One hole was built on the border of the course, and next to a street in Ames.  The hole was a downhill, dogleg-left par-5, which encouraged players to go for a big drive with the tee-shot to play to the green with their second.  Unfortunately, for most handicap players, this encouraged large slices into the on-coming traffic, and the hole was re-designed in the 1980's.  If I get around to it, I'll try to find a satellite photo of the course in its redesign - and invite some discussion on whether there were some better options.  The general concensus of golfers at ISU was that they tore up the best hole on the course, and replaced it with one of the worst.

[Peter Galea]

Forget strategy.  Like it or not, safety is the most important consideration when building a golf course.

AMEN.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pete
I don't you are suppose to drink with your medication.

Jeremy
You need to hit the bottle a wee bit harder.

[Peter Galea]

Pete
I don't you are suppose to drink with your medication.

Good one Tom, I'm laughing. I guess I was a little strong with the CAPS. I'm not saying that a golf course should be idiot proof and lack strategy, however safety is a prime consideration. When someone comes to my golf course to play and enjoy the game the last thing I want is for them to get hurt. Layout wise this has got to be a prime consideration. I know of courses built in the 20's and 30's that were designed for 30,000 rounds now doing 60-80. Tees, greens and landing areas are too close. (I think this was the impetus for the massive tree planting program at Pasatiempo). When 100 people a day play it's really not a problem because of players being spaced properly. Now, squeeze 200-300 people on a Saturday and many problems can arise. Yes, the player must assume some risk in the game, but then too the operator assumes alot from poor design. Changes which can be made to increase safety should be made, hopefully with out adding trees or fences. Sometimes these are the only ways. Good design must include strategy and safety.

[Peter Goss]

Perhaps another angle is to include golf ball and equipment manufacturers in the law suits because they create new landing areas and hence safety hazards while the standard golf course cannot hope to keep up!

The erection of safety barriers, while prudent is unsightly - is this a trend in US also? It seems they are mostly required to cater for poor design.

And have people successfully argued in master plan commitees that wider fairways with less trees are indeed safer? I am hoping so!

I ask this with a vested interest as a chairman of a master plan committee and also as a doctor - I'd much rather complete the 18 holes without having to treat anybody!!

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

You need to hit the bottle a wee bit harder

Sorry Tom, you'll have to excuse me but, being french, there are still expressions in the english language that escape me.  What the heck does "hit the bottle a wee bit harder" mean exactly?  

If I was to guess, I'd say it means I need to drink more, which I'm afraid I fail to see it's relevance.

That, or I have absolutely no sense of humour, which methinks is hardly the case  

[Tom Doak]

I do worry some about safety, particularly on consulting work.  Take down one tree, and if anyone ever gets hit on that hole after you do, you know who's going to get sued.

Pasatiempo's mission statement is to restore their golf course to what MacKenzie had, but it's an impossible goal when you overlap the safety concerns.

On my own designs, there have been a couple of times where I had to decide whether putting a tee where I wanted to was safe enough, or whether to relocate the tee or abandon the hole entirely.  [Seriously, I would have had to abandon one of my best holes entirely if I played it extra-safe.]  I don't want to see anyone get hit, but I don't want to abandon great holes either.  That's why I have liability insurance now.

There can't be that many lawsuits, or the insurance would cost more than it does.

[Neil Crafter]

Peter and others
There is no doubt in my mind that what gets golf clubs attention most is perimeter safety. OK there is an assumption of some risk when you walk on the golf course but that does not extend to adjacent roads and housing. Quite a deal of my work is in consulting to clubs on improving dangerous safety situations, especially adjacent to boundaries, with most of these coming where the holes have been routed with the slice side to the boundary. Given the propensity of right handers to slice, this side statistically gets a much larger work out. You also need to look at the different flight characteristics of a slice compared to a hook (along with many other factors including the elevation of the tee, prevailing winds etc). Typically a slice will fly higher, shorter and wider than a hook ( I know we've all hit exceptions to this!) and so the safety corridor should not be a perfectly symmetrical 15 degrees either side of the centreline - it will be a bit biased towards the right side.
As balls travel further now these sort of stray shots become even harder to retain inside a property and trees can only do so much. Sufficent physical distance separation plus some encouragement to aim further away from the boundary side of the hole through visual hazard placement can all help. Best measure is to reroute the holes if possible so that the boundaries are on the hook side, but this is expensive and not always possible (or desirable).

Peter if you want to talk to me further on this please let me know as course safety issues are someting I'm addressing more and more in my consulting work to existing courses.
cheers
Neil

[Chris Kane]

Melburnians on GCA may know Burnley, a little nine-holer affectionately known as Royal Burnley GC.

The second hole runs parallel to a train line, and there is a sign warning golfers not to hit their drive when a train is visible.  A drive twenty yards from the centre of the fairway would hit a train!

The sixth hole is a par 3 hit toward a freeway.  It can be difficult to judge the distance if you havn't played there before, and the first time I played it, I hit onto the freeway.

I don't know if there have been any problems, but there is an accident waiting to happen!

[ed_getka]

Tom,
Its a shame you have to spend money on liability insurance. I have always felt that being on a golf course automatically implies assumed risk. Unfortunately in our litigation-happy country being hit by a golf ball isn't accepted as a risk of being on a golf course, it is looked on as the next best thing to winning the lottery.

For those really concerned with safety, there are always hockey helmets.

[Peter Goss]

Neil, Tom, Jeremy, Jeff et al
Thank you for such interesting responses. Ed - while we cannot eliminate risk  I suppose it is about taking a "reasonable standard of care" in design. This seems even more difficult in renovation/redesign than original design.
And serious injury to a club member is a strong, lingering and unfortunate memory.
Chris - I was driving down the South Eastern Freeway a few years ago passing the Burnley course when a golf ball smashed my windscreen - thanks for owning up. I'll send you the bill!!

[Chris Kane]

Peter,

I thought there was an accident waiting to happen - I didn't know my ball had almost taken your life!  Send the bill to my solicitor!

Seriously: to have balls flying onto a freeway is a very very dangerous situation (I've just stated the obvious).  I wouldn't be surprised if a ball from Burnley caused a fatal accident in time.  They'll need to put a fence up ASAP, or change the routing.  Burnley is a course with a lot of beginners, which makes it even more dangerous.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Architects and liability..........

I think I'll sue Tom Doak for giving me a heart attack when I saw the tee shot of the 9th at Pacific Dunes for the first time.
Certainly there has to be some liability to that, correct?

If not for the 9th, then I'll sue him for liver damage sustained in a "Lost Weekend" of alcohol abuse in the Bunker Bar at Bandon.

Send all donations care of:
The Betty Ford Clinic
(Robert Downey Jr. Wing)
Rancho Mirage, California

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

I had someone once threaten (half kiddingly) to sue me for a design because he lost a big bet on one of my 18th holes.

If the courts would ever let that one go through, I would join Brian Phillips in Norway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()