Fore....outch

[Tony_Muldoon]

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/court-battle-over-golf-shot-that-took-out-players-eye-2896636.html


In Scotland too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

It is really a common reaction for someone to look up rather than down when hearing "Fore."  We have often laughed about that, but then again, none of us was injured.

I obviously have some mixed feelings about the whole issue, knowing that saying that golfers are responsible suits my situation best, but also knowing that I see hole juxipostions by modern architects that I could never testify are safe if called to open court.  The legal trick is to determine the crossover point between the course or architect knowing something will produce a fairly regular stream of balls into an adjacent area vs the golfer using some common sense.

[BCrosby]

In the action the plaintiff alleges: “It is common knowledge among golfers that it is the responsibility of the striker of the ball to satisfy himself that his shot cannot harm anyone.”

Interesting. And, I think, fundamentally wrong. In most US courts, the presumption is the opposite. If you play golf, you are deemed to assume (absent unusual circumstances) the risk of being struck by errant shots.

Keep us posted in the outcome of the case.

Bob

[Anthony Gray]

 It is truly a shame. I had a patient loose an eye on the golf course and now the stress that leaves for one eye has left him disabled.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I'm surprised to hear that its a common response to look up when someone yells fore.  I've had a few balls zing by me on the course over the years and I always immediately covered my head with arms and crouched over.

[J Sadowsky]

In the action the plaintiff alleges: “It is common knowledge among golfers that it is the responsibility of the striker of the ball to satisfy himself that his shot cannot harm anyone.”

Interesting. And, I think, fundamentally wrong. In most US courts, the presumption is the opposite. If you play golf, you are deemed to assume (absent unusual circumstances) the risk of being struck by errant shots.

Keep us posted in the outcome of the case.

Bob

  I know you used the term "most," but if I'm remembering first year torts, courts are firmly split on the issue vis-a-vis other golfers.  I tend to think that the right rule is that golfers assume the risk of being hit by a golf shot that is merely negligently struck, but do not assume the risk of being hit by a golf shit that completely goes against the basic decent standards of golf (being hit by a ball from the group behind them, being hit by a ball while in plain sight of a golfer who does not bother to yell fore, etc.).  But I am not sure any court has adopted my view, which essentially permits recovery for gross negligence or recklessness, but not ordinary negligence.

[BCrosby]

Justin -

I agree. The assumption of risk defense only works if the shot was one that is normally attempted on a golf course. It would not cover intentional acts where I go out of my way to try to hit someone or, say, hit a shot perpindicular to a fw just for the heck of it.

But those aren't the facts in Tony's case in West Lothian. Involved there was a normally played (albeit errant) shot that happened to hit a guy in the eye. I'm pretty sure most courts in the US, under those facts, would buy the assumption of risk defense. If you play golf, you should anticipate errant shots.

Heck, in Georgia the rule is that you assume the risk of damage to your car if you drive next to a golf course. (A case that came out of a windshield shattered as someone drove along the 3rd hole at EL.)

On a related note, a couple of years ago I searched some data bases for cases awarding damages for personal injury on architects for "negligent" designs. Couldn't find any. I did a quickie, casual search, so maybe I missed some. But my guess is that such cases are pretty rare. I assume because of the asumption of risk defense. (There are, however, a number of torts cases out there involving golf course operators, but that is a different set of issues. And there was a recent case involving the 14th hole at Essex in Mass, but that was not about personal injury.)

Bob 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I wrote an opinion letter for my former club about a hazardous condition that existed on the course after I almost got beaned by someone trying to cut a dogleg over a green on the next hole that was originally not placed there. There's nothing like a golf ball whizzing by one's skull to put the club on notice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/sports/golf/22golf.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a27

Here's a famous PA case:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19670425&id=4kgqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Yk8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7220,4558436

[Tony_Muldoon]

Result here
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100013323/how-a-round-of-golf-cost-400000/

and the club got hit too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8899466/Golf-course-forced-to-pay-120000-for-having-too-few-signs.html

[Carl Nichols]

Justin -

I agree. The assumption of risk defense only works if the shot was one that is normally attempted on a golf course. It would not cover intentional acts where I go out of my way to try to hit someone or, say, hit a shot perpindicular to a fw just for the heck of it.

Sounds right to me.  I'm not a PI lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that in those states that recognize assumption of risk as a defense (and not all do), the defense is generally available only in cases of negligence, not reckless or intentional torts.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

What about blind holes? Should they all be redesigned? You could argue that at Royal County Down where, as a visitor. you are supposed to be under a certain handicap limit golfers are going to be reasonably competent. But what about Heaton Park, a municipal course in North Manchester? If you were the only group out on the course it would be great fun (a JH Taylor, I think). But there are a number of blind holes over hills on key strokes. It would be very easy to drive into the group in front if they have come to grief having just crossed the summit. There is one marvellous dog-leg where you bite off as much as you can chew over scrubby bushes which obscure the landing area - strong players might drive the green. But who knows where the group in front might be?

Obviously it is awful when someone loses an eye. The victim could have been killed. But don't we recognise that possibility when we play any sport? There are occasional horrendous injuries in amateur rugby, players are paralysed for life. I remember knocking a chap's entire set of front teeth out while playing cricket. If you race a motorbike or car, dive from a high board, indulge in boxing, throw darts or take part in     almost any sport there is the possibility of some sort of accident. In the paper the other day was a story of an amateur snooker player who was chalking his or her cue. Someone backed into him or her and the cue hit him or her in the mouth. Thirty years later the tip of the cue fell from his or mouth where it had been embedded for so long! Surely the dentist might have noticed?

[Tony_Muldoon]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH181.html

It's fairly dense but I assume should be required reading for all operators....and players?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

My initial reactions are that the ruling from the court that the club has a shared responsibility for the accident and implied they should have had warnings of safety on the course, has prised the lid off the can and let the worms out.

Niddry Castle will have to put notices up all over the place.
From the 18th Tee the shot to the fairway crosses the 17th and 7th Hole.
The 5th and 6th more or less share the same fairway in opposite directions.

Will the Old Course have to put notices up all over the place to warn players of the dangers? As Mark say’s – what about blind shots?

[Bill Brightly]

I would have to assume that the guy in the UK who hit the shot had Homeowners;Liability insurance, and I bet the club also had Liability insurance. Sounds like the court wanted to compensat the guy who lost an eye, and probably knew what covergae limits were in place.

[Niall C]

Bill

I very much doubt whether they had insurance was even a consideration. I suspect that this bit of case law offered clairification of a legal principle and will be noted by all clubs. The first thing you will see is warning signs going up all over the place, and the next thing will be safety nets, closely followed by holes being redesigned. An awful lot of courses in Scotland are basically the same courses they were when they were designed before the war, in some cases WW1. Consequently they have been built on 100 acres or less.

I'd like to see a modern architect try and design an 18 hole course with that kind of acreage that would pass safety guidelines.

Basically this case was just waiting to happen. Clubs have been happy to rely on insurance for the odd broken windows and damage to property outwith the allotment (17th and 18th TOC anyone ?) but I suspect from now on insurance cover will either be withdrawn in certain circumstances or it will go through the roof.

Niall 

[Brent Hutto]

Basically this case was just waiting to happen. Clubs have been happy to rely on insurance for the odd broken windows and damage to property outwith the allotment (17th and 18th TOC anyone ?) but I suspect from now on insurance cover will either be withdrawn in certain circumstances or it will go through the roof.

Maybe I'll be dead or at least too old for golf before the last walkable, enjoyable, nicely laid out course becomes a safety-netted monstrosity. What do they do when somebody gets a ball upside the head on a completely "safety conscious" course of the latest modern standard? Make us start playing with Nerf balls and sponge-rubber clubs?

[Niall C]

Brent

What will happen is that the club and the architect won't get sued, and thats the point. The club can't legislate for an individual golfers stupidity but they can take measures themselves to avoid an action against the club.

Niall