Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Chuck Brown on February 10, 2009, 06:18:20 PM
-
Many of you might have seen this story elsewhere. It seems, at first blush, to be so unlikely as to be one of those urban legend lawusits that is exposed as a fraud by Snopes.com...
But no, what follows is a true story. Anyway, here's the story, as reported in the Manchester Union-Leader:
==============================
Blinded By His Own Ball, Golfer Sues
By Trent Spiner
Union Leader Correspondent
Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009
BRENTWOOD – Paul Sanchez, a 67-year-old "occasional" golfer, sued Candia Woods Golf Links this week over an accident that left him blind in one eye.
Sanchez, of 20 Country Club Drive, Manchester, was golfing with two or three friends in September 2006 when a ball he hit bounced off a yardage-marker and "whacked him" in the right eye, according to his attorney, Barry M. Scotch.
"Before he could even -- pardon the expression -- blink, he was hit," Scotch said. "It just ricocheted right back at him."
In the lawsuit, Sanchez faults the course's owners for failing to warn him about the markers, which are used by golfers to decide what type of club to use and how much effort to put into a swing.
Sanchez is seeking unspecified damages, claiming the markers were made of material too rigid to be safe for the course, according to the suit filed in Rockingham County Superior Court. He also blames the mishap on a lack of warning about the markers and improper placement in the middle of the fairway.
The suit contends the course didn't warn Sanchez about the risk in the pro shop, on the scorecard or on any tee boxes.
Scotch said the markers should have been placed off to the side of the fairway and golfers should have been told they are removable during play.
Police at the time said Sanchez was playing the 11th hole, a 443-yard par-4.
The suit said it was Sanchez's third shot on the hole. The marker was 150 yards from the green.
Court records show Sanchez suffered a fractured upper orbital rim, the bone behind his eyebrow, along with a blurring or total loss of vision. Sanchez was taken from the back nine by ambulance and transported to the Elliot Hospital in Manchester.
If it goes to trial, the case could be before a jury sometime in the summer of 2010. Scotch, of the Manchester law firm Backus, Meyer Solomon & Branch, said a golf expert was consulted before the suit was filed.
"It's not a frivolous, run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-who-salutes kind of thing," Scotch said.
There is no word yet on how much money Sanchez will be seeking in damages. Mary Ellen Sanchez, his wife, is also a party to the suit, claiming emotional damage.
Candia Woods owner Peter Harrity refused comment yesterday. An attorney for the course was not listed in court records.
The popular 18-hole course opened in 1964, according to its Web site, where it bills itself as the "Friendliest Course in New Hampshire."
==============================
Okay, I know what you are thinking. Outrageous. A lousy golfer, ignorant of the rules, whacks a ball off a 150-yard pole that he could have moved. And he was 160 yards away, playing three, on a Par 4. A poster-case for tort reform, right? Well, I won't disagree. And since this is sort of what I do professionally, I'm inclined to agree even as I proclaim my own defense-side prejudice.
For the jury, the preliminary liability question(s) might include:
~Was the design/decision (to the extent that it is "course design" at all) -- placement of a 150 pole in the fairway -- an inherently dangerous condition or an otherwise negligent design?
~Was the course operator negligent in failing to warn players that they may move and replace the pole to play a shot?
~Was the use of a hard pole (instead of a softer substance?) something that no reasonable golf course operator would have done?
With just about all of those questions, and others like them, expert opinion testimony might be admissible.
Now, for my friends here at GCA, this is my question. The one interesting thing that I pulled from the U-L story was this: "Scotch, of the Manchester law firm Backus, Meyer Solomon & Branch, said a golf expert was consulted before the suit was filed."
Okay. So who is that expert? I presume it is a golf professional, or a golf course architect, or a golf course superintendent. Somebody whom, I am guessing, may be a member of the GCSAA, the PGA of America, etc. It is common for laywers to consult an expert before filing a complaint. It is routine that after a few months of initial discovery, witness lists and disclosures as to the identity of expert witnesses must be made. So maybe the plaintiffs' expert is still a secret. But he or she won't be secret for long if this case goes as I think it will.
I'd like to follow this case, and find out who the heck it is that might be offering "expert" testimony in support for this idiotic lawsuit. Do we have any NH guys, perhaps any NH attorneys, who can comment on this case? Or check up on details as they occur?
-
Remember when people used to use common sense?
-
Chuck,
I have indeed seen this story before...right here on our own GCA.com just a few days ago. ::)
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38504.0.html
-
:-X Kalen, I am indeed sorry; I hadn't seen it. "Keep an eye out for this guy" is a thread-title that didn't, well, catch my eye...
I see Mr. Shaffer and I were entertaining pretty much the same thought on the identity of the expert(s).
-
:-XKalen, I am indeed sorry; I hadn't seem it. "Keep an eye out for this guy" is a thread-title that didn't, well, catch my eye...
I see Mr. Shaffer and I were entertining pretty much the same thought on the identity of the expert(s).
Not a problem...as you state, the thread title wasn't exactly "eye-opening" in what it was about. ;)
-
Interesting design feature though, Yardage poles in the middle of the fairway :o, if I understand correctly????????
-
the attorney----Barry Scotch is it? somewhere the golf gods are... what exactly? ???
-
Interesting design feature though, Yardage poles in the middle of the fairway :o, if I understand correctly????????
I've seen these before, they aren't uncommon. But in these cases, 2 rules always apply.
1) If something is in the way....move it! I've never been told they are removable either but it seemed previous obvious by noticing it was in a sleeve in a piece of concrete stuck in the ground that it could be taken out.
2) If it won't move either move your ball or alter the shot direction!
-
the attorney----Barry Scotch is it? somewhere the golf gods are... what exactly? ???
Another sign the Apocalypse is upon us. :o
Best
Dave
-
Wouldn't the club have some form of defense if they somewhere mention to play by USGA rules.... meaning that you receive relief from a man made object interfering with your line to the hole?? Just a thought.
If this is the case it means that the golfer voluntarily chose not to take relief from the obstruction.
-
I wrote to the plaintiff's attorney about the expert in this case identifying myself as a plaintiff's attorney which I was in my former life. To date, no reponse.
-
:-XKalen, I am indeed sorry; I hadn't seem it. "Keep an eye out for this guy" is a thread-title that didn't, well, catch my eye...
I see Mr. Shaffer and I were entertining pretty much the same thought on the identity of the expert(s).
Not a problem...as you state, the thread title wasn't exactly "eye-opening" in what it was about. ;)
Perhaps its in the eye of the beholder?
Or he turned a blind eye towards the original post?
-
This reminds me of the case a few years ago when a golfer teeing off hit a tee marker, the ball came back and struck him or someone, resulting in damages....and ultimately a law suit...the upshot is many courses started using tee markers that would shatter rather then rebound a shot....the local muni I know switched from cheap concrete markers to a soft metal type that easily breaks up when struck.
-
Wouldn't the club have some form of defense if they somewhere mention to play by USGA rules.... meaning that you receive relief from a man made object interfering with your line to the hole?? Just a thought.
If this is the case it means that the golfer voluntarily chose not to take relief from the obstruction.
Relief from an immovable obstruction is granted in the case of interference with stance or swing only, I believe.
-
what about when there are grandstands in the way.... I remember tiger getting relief during that playoff with furyk at Firestone.. I have no idea what the actual legal defense would be though. I was just trying to throw something out there.
-
Wouldn't the club have some form of defense if they somewhere mention to play by USGA rules.... meaning that you receive relief from a man made object interfering with your line to the hole?? Just a thought.
If this is the case it means that the golfer voluntarily chose not to take relief from the obstruction.
Relief from an immovable obstruction is granted in the case of interference with stance or swing only, I believe.
Well, I didn't want to turn this into a Rules Tutorial, but the 150-yard mark in question was like just about all such markers; it was movable. All this idiot had to do was to pull the stake out of its sleeve, hit the the shot, and then put the stake back where it was originally. The Plaintiff's claim is, "I was too stupid to know that." (Well, perhaps his lawyer will phrase it more artfully.) But that claim doesn't answer the question, if you hit your ball in the direction of a stake (or anything else) that was as plain as the nose on your face (the thing right between your two eyes -- ooh, sorry), did you not consider the possibility that the ball might ricochet and hit you? You know, like a tree or a bench or a building or anything else that is in virtually universal parlance, from barroom jokes to television commercials on golf broadcasts.
In other words, this lawsuit does not question any technical understanding of the Rules of Golf. It is more in the manner of "open and obvious hazards" and "assumption of risk."
Whether or not this guy moved his ball, or took relief with or without a penalty, is completely beside the point. (Although I very much appreciate the point that if this idiot is complaining about some technical phrasing of warnings on the scorecard, it is true that adherence to the Rules of Golf would have offered this dummy adequate, free, unpenalized relief.)
-
Wouldn't the club have some form of defense if they somewhere mention to play by USGA rules.... meaning that you receive relief from a man made object interfering with your line to the hole?? Just a thought.
If this is the case it means that the golfer voluntarily chose not to take relief from the obstruction.
Robert:
Relief under Rule 24-2 is given for stance and area of intended swing only. As noted on P.71 of the Rules of Golf "Intervention on the Line of Play is not,of itself, interference under this rule."
The situation you refer to on grandstands deals with Temporary Immovable Obstructions (TIO) and the rules are somewhat different.
Best
Dave
-
3rd shot on a par 4 from 150... just learn to play golf...
-
I don't think the "bad golfer" defense will fly in this case. If the yardage post was removable and the plaintiff didn't know the rules,then it might be a different story. If NH is a comparative negligence state, then the golfer's negligence, if more than 50%, would preclude a jury award. The first question a jury has to answer is: Was the Defendant negligent? That's the battle of the experts. If the answer is yes, then other questions must be answered including: Was the Plaintiff negligent?
-
That's right, Steve.
I just want to know who the mystery expert is.
As we both know, experts become what they are because of skill, training and experience. They usually have Curricula Vitae that are loaded up with all of their past jobs and associations, and the professional societies to which they belong.
So, who the hell is the guy who is providing any "expert" assistance to this claim?
-
I'm a NH attorney, and know one of the partners in the firm that represents the plaintiff. I'll be glad to follow the case and report. I know of no NH reported cases on liability for injuries suffered on golf courses. NH is a comparative fault state.
It may be awhile before I'll be given any info I can report. With the writ just being filed recently, discovery will be just getting underway and the parties won't be giving out information.
-
I'm a NH attorney, and know one of the partners in the firm that represents the plaintiff. I'll be glad to follow the case and report. I know of no NH reported cases on liability for injuries suffered on golf courses. NH is a comparative fault state.
It may be awhile before I'll be given any info I can report. With the writ just being filed recently, discovery will be just getting underway and the parties won't be giving out information.
Mitch, as far as you know, did the plaintiffs file and then immediately call a press conference? Did they call the Union-Leader, or did the Union-Leader call them?
It was hard to tell, from the newspspaper story, if the parties had talked at all before the suit was filed. Sometimes you'll see that, and sometimes, even if there had been pre-suit negotiations, there is no mention.
-
Mitch,
Are the dockets available online?
-
I always taught that when you pay your green fee, you also signed a waiver from accident like these...
- I often wish the country had more engineer, and less lawyers...
Barack Obama
-
I've never seen a waiver for playing golf. Maybe for a cart rental. I doubt a waiver is valid anyway.
Interesting quote from the President given that he is a lawyer and former law school professor.
-
Steve: No, the Superior Court dockets are not on line. The only way to review the pleadings is to go to the court. Rockingham County is some distance from my residence.
-
The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case yeasterday. It upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment (ruling that the course owner owed no duty to protect the plaintiff with regard to the risk of his ball striking the yardage marker located in the center of the fairway and that the risk was therefore assumed by him).
Hence, no recovery for his injury.
-
The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case yeasterday. It upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment (ruling that the course owner owed no duty to protect the plaintiff with regard to the risk of his ball striking the yardage marker located in the center of the fairway and that the risk was therefore assumed by him).
Hence, no recovery for his injury.
As is often the situation the final verdict is on cases like this makes sense--especially if you learn all the facts.
One of my favorite examples is the Macdonalds hot coffee suit. Many obsevers thought the verdict was silly, but after reading the details it's hard to disagree w/ the jury.
K
-
The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case yeasterday. It upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment (ruling that the course owner owed no duty to protect the plaintiff with regard to the risk of his ball striking the yardage marker located in the center of the fairway and that the risk was therefore assumed by him).
Hence, no recovery for his injury.
Thank goodness. Did Supreme Court publish the opinion? If not, is it available somewhere else?
Thanks
-
JC:
If you want to track golf and club related litigations and lawsuits your best bet is to get in touch with the National Club Association (NCA) in Washington D.C.
I have done a pretty good amount of golf related lawsuit tracking and research through them over the years. Some of the most interesting are ones that had to do with the privacy issue somehow. I remember one in particular where Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a most interesting opinion for the majority essentially sending it back where it came from to be resolved. ;)
But probably the most interesting of all was that Casey Martin thing.
-
The NH Supreme Court decision is not surprising. It is consistent with a long line of cases in which the affirmative defense of "assumption of risk" is given great weight.
That is true not just in the context of golf, but in virtually every other sport as well.
It's a shame that newspapers tend to report the (often sensational) trial level claims of the injured and rarely return to report later the final adjudication of the matter.
Bob
-
JC:
If you want to track golf and club related litigations and lawsuits your best bet is to get in touch with the National Club Association (NCA) in Washington D.C.
I have done a pretty good amount of golf related lawsuit tracking and research through them over the years. Some of the most interesting are ones that had to do with the privacy issue somehow. I remember one in particular where Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a most interesting opinion for the majority essentially sending it back where it came from to be resolved. ;)
But probably the most interesting of all was that Casey Martin thing.
Thanks for the legal research tip :)
-
JC:
You're welcome. I wasn't sure if you realized there are people who do legal research on golf related stuff or even otherwise. Some believe lawyers sort of just enter into things simply to argue. ;)
-
JC:
You're welcome. I wasn't sure if you realized there are people who do legal research on golf related stuff or even otherwise. Some believe lawyers sort of just enter into things simply to argue. ;)
;D
-
"Your Honor, I object to that response and those ridiculous looking dentures on the grounds that they tend towards not perpetuating the argument!"
"Counselor, see me in my chambers immediately for excessive foolishness in my courtroom."
-
We absolutely need tort reform in this country.
Aren't the dangers of hitting with the pole there readily apparent? Don't they come out of the ground easily? Didn't he possibly assume the risk by hitting without either removing the pole or moving his ball?
I hope they send him packing at summary judgment, but don't hold your breath on that...
-
We absolutely need tort reform in this country.
Aren't the dangers of hitting with the pole there readily apparent? Don't they come out of the ground easily? Didn't he possibly assume the risk by hitting without either removing the pole or moving his ball?
I hope they send him packing at summary judgment, but don't hold your breath on that...
I'll bet you $10 he loses and loses all his appeals.
-
I accept your bet JC. I think you are wrong that he'll lose and lose all his appeals.
Just as a non-bet guess, I'd imagine the case settles before trial and he gets something.
-
I'll bet you $10 he loses and loses all his appeals.
I accept your bet JC.
;D ;D ;D
-
JC, for the record, I do hope you're right and that I have to pay you $10, because I don't want the lugnut to ruin it for everyone else, but I don't have much faith in that happening...
***UODATE*** I missed the end of the thread on page 1. JC I owe you $10.
Hooray for N.H. sending the guy packing. It's about time courts in NY started doing the same thing. JC send me your address off-list.
-
Hey, I am not a lawyer, but I do remember a little lore.
The 'McDonalds hot coffee' famed incident; you know, $2,000,000 returned judgement? It was thrown out on appeal, right? I see this one so many times that it makes me nauseous to see how many do not know that the result of nearly all this frivilous crap is laughter and the boot.
The old 'tort reform' BS is nonsense. My friend who actually IS a lawyer will tell you that corporations win nearly every lawsuit case, and far more often than justice should allow. Why so? Because they have so much pull in the communities [my job etc] and because they have far more legal resources than John Q. The 'tort reform' crap is just politics get local govs, who are fed by the money from these sources, to enact protection legislation in return for 'donations'. I seem to recall that the Constitution of the United States [you know the one?] actually mentions specifically the right to sue for redress, yes?
All that said, I doubt this man will get 'redress' for an incident that most any juror will say 'pays your money and takes your chances' to. And if twelve close friends end up on his local jury, even they are unlikely. But IF they actually did give him cash, the appeal with kick it out.
Leave the Constitution alone please.
Doug
-
Doug,
I've posted this before about the infamous "McDonald's coffee case" and I will every time someone here calls for "tort reform"
and refers to the case. I am still a lawyer but not actively practicing. The case was not "thrown out" on appeal. A settlement was reached before the appeal was decided.
TRUTH ABOUT MCDONALD'S CASE
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases or outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding - capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive through window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreased toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to the temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 - or three times compensatory damages - even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
After an appeal, the parties reached a confidential settlement.
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California
-
Steve, doesn't that still beg the question of what kind of imbecile puts a styrofoam cup of boiling hot coffee between their legs? Car moving or not? Doesn't a normal person think, "maybe I shouldn't do this because it's a styrofoam cup and it might spill? That's like my friend yesterday who spent Thanksgiving in a hospital with her cousin who got his hand stuck in a corn grinder, or worse still, the ass-hole teenager kid who broke his neck when he tried to take a kiddie sled down a homemade mogul run and when he flipped over got a spinal cord injury. Then when a lawyer asked him if he didn't think what he was doing was dangerous he said, "gee I didn't see any risk that would cause a spinal cord injury."
People should know enough not to shave with lawn mowers...and a few other common sense things too...
...and they especially should read the entire thread so they don't have to send $10 checks to Charlotte:):) ***hand raised***
-
Steve, doesn't that still beg the question of what kind of imbecile puts a styrofoam cup of boiling hot coffee between their legs? Car moving or not? Doesn't a normal person think, "maybe I shouldn't do this because it's a styrofoam cup and it might spill? That's like my friend yesterday who spent Thanksgiving in a hospital with her cousin who got his hand stuck in a corn grinder, or worse still, the ass-hole teenager kid who broke his neck when he tried to take a kiddie sled down a homemade mogul run and when he flipped over got a spinal cord injury. Then when a lawyer asked him if he didn't think what he was doing was dangerous he said, "gee I didn't see any risk that would cause a spinal cord injury."
People should know enough not to shave with lawn mowers...and a few other common sense things too...
...and they especially should read the entire thread so they don't have to send $10 checks to Charlotte:):) ***hand raised***
Jay-I don`t know if you would make a very good candy striper. Compassion and empathy for only those that didn`t get hurt doing something stupid? The "ass-hole teenager kid" seems a bit harsh as teenagers pull these kinds of stunts constantly. Did you ever see Jackass? Have a heart-its Christmas time. :)
-
In case anyone is interested in Golf-related litigation, my wife gave me John Minan's book "The Little Green Book of Golf Law." It profiles 19 real-life cases on golf-related suits.
-
I read that book, and it's terrible. It picks the wierdest cases, then as filler, shifts gears to talk about golf rules to fill space...rules that have nothing to do with the legal cases.