Golf ball rollback

[Tim Liddy]

Will the golf ball manufacturers eventually be sued by a personal injury claim from an errant golf shot?  It would be easy to prove that golf balls are being sold that exceed the intended filed of play that golf balls were originally designed to accommodate.  Lawsuits typically follow the money –golf course architects, developers, etc. do not have a great amount of money compared to manufacturers.  Will this bring us the golf ball rollback we need?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Liddy,

Interesting theory.

If it's about money, a wider net would need to be cast, hence, wouldn't the USGA and the club manufacturers be named as co-defendents ?  

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Nope, that won't even remotely happen. I've been tracking liability cases (through the NCA) for some years now and when it comes to liability with accidents to do with golf balls the precedents in the country are pretty interesting.

In the legal framework (that precedent cases clearly seem to indicate) liability with golf ball accidents basically gets into negligence and sort of the intent of it. The legal context looks at golf basically as something that everyone must and should understand has some inherent danger attached to it in the most ideal of circumstances and basically all the law asks anyone to do is the best they can under existing circumstances and not to create an ideal situation of complete safety.

The manufacturer's and golf balls are no different. Advertising and everything attached to it to do with golf balls and distance is not about to create any surprises. If anything the manufacturers imply that golfers can hit golf balls farther than they probably realistically can anyway. That kind of information and apparent knowledge is all over the place. If it was the other way around only THEN would the manufacturers likely have a problem with a liability suit to do with manufacturer negligence.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Additionally, golf ball distance does not exceed the intended field of play.

[TEPaul]

The only thing that would make the manufacturers be willing to roll back the distance the ball goes would be if enough golfers got together and sent the message to the manufacturers that they don't want to hit the ball as far as they are anymore. What do you think the chances of that happening are? I think that's possible but not real likely right now--not without some really good organization anyway.

I'm worried that even if the USGA decreed a distance rollback right now the manufacturers for the first time in history may no longer be willing to comply.

And what about all these purists who advocate a rollback? Why do I keep seeing ALL of them with the latest 500cc .830 COR driver and the latest ProVxs?

Oh yeah, because they say they can't compete otherwise with the next guy. For this to really happen the manufacturers are going to have to be convinced that golfers don't want to hit the ball as far as they are right now and that would include you, me, probably the next guy and definitely most of the other guys!

I'm afraid the manufacturers are of a mind now where if they see a viable market they'll produce what that market wants and if the USGA tries to roll back distance on that market the manufacturers just might say--"Who cares?"

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom is sure of himself...for once.

Tim, I've forecast this for some time and am waiting to see it happen. As one who provides expert testimony on design issues, it cannot be argued forever that the golfer and/or the architect was at fault.

Take the case of a car and a road. The driver loses control and it is proved that a new fuel additive has made performance so much better that it IS the result of the loss of control. No difference with the ball. What was once a range of distance and deviation is now heightened...beyond what is expected...and therefore what could have been anticipated by the "driver" or the "road designer".

[Jim_Kennedy]

Forrest,
A Dodge Viper will do 170+MPH. It potentially exceeds the driving capabilities of the vast majority of the motoring public.
It is only through negligence on the part of the driver that lawsuits may arise.

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, having had some recent conversations about this with some USGA and R&A people it appears what the two equipment regulatory bodies want to do now and in the future is to draw a new line in the sand and enforce that line in every conceivable way. They aren't even thinking about an actual rollback the way some of you guys are. And furthermore this is not a loosening or liberalize of the old 109mph ODS limitation, in their minds--this is just plugging in a new protocol that looks more realistic!

The new proposed ODS swing speed protocol is now at 120mph instead of the old 109MPH. They intend to limit to the ODS line any combination of ball or implement of any kind whatsoever in the future that sends a ball farther than that ODS at 120mph--and if for any reason whatsoever that limit is exceeded at 120mph by some combination of ball and implement they'll declare it nonconforming (I suppose that means they'll declare whatever it is that's sending that ball farther than the ODS at 120 nonconforming if they can figure out what that is!   ).

But here's the really interesting thing about the new ODS proposed standards. If you read the proposal one way it does appear they mean to limit anything under the sun that would send a ball farther than the ODS limit at 120mph!! That would include athletic ability too--something they have heretofor never touched. So I suppose if some animal comes along next year who swings at 150 mph they'll try to limit him too to the new ODS limit at 120mph.

Think about that! Doesn't that sound slightly illogical? If they figure out how to do that too that would be a very neat trick!  

[TEPaul]

Actually, on second thought, maybe they have figured out a way to limit the distance a ball goes if hit over the new ODS limit at 120mph and somehow prevail on the manufacturers to plug that technology into the ball and even limit super athletic ability that has nothing really to do with the actual ball and impliment combination limitations at 120mph!!

I just couldn't figure out how they could ever control athletic ability too--something they've never tried to do until now but I think I've figured it out! If some animal comes along with the athletic ability to swing at 150 or even at 121 mph, for that matter, the new age ball will EXPLODE!!

Goddamn those guys are clever!  

[Forrest Richardson]

Jim,

The car represents the clubs. The fuel represents the ball. In my discussion I used the analogy of the additive of the fuel (ball). Maybe a better analogy is a bullet and a gun. The firearm is known by the shooter, and so is the range. But...a bullet of extra "quality" may prove a poor design.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

This brings to mind two Michael Hurdzan quotes.
"Architects decide the length of a hole, attorneys the width."
"There are no accidents in America."

Tom P.
What you are referring to is "assumption of risk."  Attorneys in California seldom let that slow them down in filing lawsuits.  They jump right on negligence in design.  I have had that happen several times at my little course.  I think what could happen as a defense of negligent design is for a creative attorney to point out how the ball distances have increased and relieve the designers of liability by pointing to ball manufacturers and the USGA.
In a lawsuit at my driving range, a neigbhor's attorney implied just that, but he was referring to graphite shafts, not the ball, as the culprit.  In discussions of a summary judgment, the judge told him he had better have some good documentation on that.  It was eventually settled out of court.  They got money and I got the shaft!

[TEPaul]

"Tom P.
What you are referring to is "assumption of risk."  Attorneys in California seldom let that slow them down in filing lawsuits."

Lynn:

The whole concept of the how attorneys conjur up what the "assumption of risk" is, is a California thing. The hope is that judges in other states won't pay attention to what California attorneys or California judges do!

Some Californians have very active imaginations---to be honest, too active for the rest of us Americans!