Do you think and architect should avoid features that can hurt the player?

[Jason Topp]

I have found the match play entertaining but there have been several attempted shots against rocks or rock walls.  One of them apparently resulted in an injury causing a player to withdraw. 


Stone walls are interesting from a historical perspective and limestone rocks certainly reflect the area in which this course is located but should an architect avoid tempting a player to hit shots from features that can hurt them? 


Part of me says yes and part of me says that the golfer needs to be the judge of his limitations, it is never possible to eliminate such shots entirely and our society errors too much on the side of safety. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:


It's an interesting question, and bigger than you think.  Architects pay liability insurance premiums, and we are good targets for lawsuits, so we have to think about such things from a financial perspective. 


We also have to negotiate with clients at the beginning of some jobs as to who has the liability for such things.  In my contract with Stone Eagle, I accepted responsibility for turfed areas of the golf course, but not for areas off the turf.  I was trying to avoid lawsuits for slip-and-fall lawsuits over stairs that I had little to do with, and for cart paths.  I don't know if someone hitting a ball off a rock and back at themselves standing on the grass would be my problem, or the client's.  [And the original client no longer exists!]


The rock wall issue is not really much different from the potential to have a ball rebound off a tree and hurt you -- I guess there would be a distinction between BUILDING the wall and NOT CUTTING DOWN the tree.


Incidentally, there was a big lawsuit over Austin CC many years ago.  An outsider parked his car by the highway, jumped the property fence, went down to the water hazard by the 3rd or 4th hole [12th or 13th as seen on TV], dove in headfirst, and was paralyzed.  The lake had only been dug four feet deep, not eight, and Mr. Dye was sued for negligence.  I don't remember if the complainant won his case, or whether it was settled before a verdict, but it was a lot of $.  That's why we all have insurance.

[Jon Cavalier]

If those facts are correct, and some guy (a trespasser, not a guest, who actually had to climb a fence) dove into an unknown pond (not a pool) and won a huge sum of money (in Texas no less), I'd be terrified to own a business. Protection from other people's stupidity must cost a fortune.

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
Well if he should then there would be no cart paths.  There are more lawsuits over cart paths and their issues than any other part of the golf course.  Have you ever driven a cart while having the front half of your left foot putside the floorboard of the cart.  Do you realize how many knees and hips are damaged by just that one little thing.  All it takes is a curb or a post that doesn't move and it will take one right out of a cart w knee and possible hip damage....and it goes on from there...

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the input and believe me I understand the liability concerns (I am a lawyer and used to defend professional negligence lawsuits).  In my view, an architect should never be liable for such a feature - the risk is open and obvious and the player willingly takes a risk when attempting the shot.  The risk can easily be avoided by chipping out or taking an unplayable lie.  (Of course - try telling that to a Texas jury).

Nonetheless, just because an architect should not be liable, it does not mean that designing such a feature is a good idea.   I cringed a bit when I saw that guy setting up for his shot.  Given the status of his match you can see why he attempted it.  Heck, I probably would attempt it in a one dollar match against someone on this board.

[Josh Stevens]

Def not, golf needs more blood.

Difficult to regulate as there is no sharp line between safe and dangerous - anything can be dangerous if you try hard enough

At the 1991 Australian Open, on the 71st hole, Brett Ogle, who was in with a shot at the title, tried to be cheeky with a ball about a yard behind a small tree.   Gave it a full swing, ball hit the small trunk flush dead centre, ricocheted back and smashed his kneecap into about a dozen pieces.

I know its cruel but gee it was funny.  It made the tournament.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason:


It's an interesting question, and bigger than you think.  Architects pay liability insurance premiums, and we are good targets for lawsuits, so we have to think about such things from a financial perspective. .....

The rock wall issue is not really much different from the potential to have a ball rebound off a tree and hurt you -- I guess there would be a distinction between BUILDING the wall and NOT CUTTING DOWN the tree.


Incidentally, there was a big lawsuit over Austin CC many years ago.  An outsider parked his car by the highway, jumped the property fence, went down to the water hazard by the 3rd or 4th hole [12th or 13th as seen on TV], dove in headfirst, and was paralyzed.  The lake had only been dug four feet deep, not eight, and Mr. Dye was sued for negligence.  I don't remember if the complainant won his case, or whether it was settled before a verdict, but it was a lot of $.  That's why we all have insurance.

As near as I can tell there is a difference between rocks existing on a golf course and building a vertical obstruction, from a legal perspective, but then again, you can't stop anyone from suing.  I thought about these issues when I built the MN courses where we had numerous natural boulders, some too big to move. I thought about it very specifically when playing the Legend Course with Governor Jesse Ventura, a poor golfer who chose to play shots even if directly behind a natural boulder.  His bodyguards tried to stop him but he wouldn't not play the shot. 


I recall Pete Dye discussing the famous bunker wall at Harbor Town 14.  I gather some brave guy went in to take some shots and the 45 degree angle of the wall had most go straight up in the air, so they left it.  You can imagine a shot hitting a stray nail or crevice and reacting much differently..


I recall the lawsuit TD mentions.  IIRC the course had another lawsuit involving a women who backed up her cart and ran over her own sister, breaking her leg, in the cart staging area.  While Pete didn't design the cart staging area, he did get sued and was called to testify.  In his retelling of that time on the stand, the lawyer asks him if the cart area was too small to safely maneuver around in.  His classic Pete answer, "She backed up without looking and nailed her sister in the first foot of movement.  "If that area had been the size of Montana, she still would have hit her."