[Jerry Lemons]

Jeff
No one in their right mind would build it again and get flogged by this group

Jerry

[JC Jones]

The tort lawyers wouldn't let you build it in America -- would they?

The journalists would piss all over themselves trying to play it for free, wouldn't they?

Some of them, I suppose, would -- but I don't associate with any of them, so I couldn't say for sure.

Can anyone answer my question?

While a lawyer, I am not a tort lawyer so I cannot speak for them.  Nor do I want to make a sweeping generalization.  However, although there are current uncertainties, the current state of the law only finds one liable for the intentional tort, i.e. intentionally hitting at someone.  Everything else, like a baseball at a baseball game is to a certain degree, assumption of the risk.

Surprisingly, there are bunch of jackasses in Florida and other areas with residential developments that want to buy houses on golf courses and then sue golfers who damage their houses or their persons with errant tee shots.  Other that 1 or 2 rogue courts, those people have lost.

That is, at least, my understanding of the current state of the law.  I dont, however, follow it regularly so I wouldnt rely on it.

(obligatory CYA statement above, I am a lawyer after all )

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,

I have always thought that if they could prove that the course or designer knew or should have known that a situation was obviously unsafe, the course was liable to change things.  

Someone did a tort seach here a few years ago, and found that there were actually very few golf course lawsuits regarding being struck by a ball.  But, I read an article yesterday saying golf was "fertile ground" for lawsuits, mostly as golf courses try to sell to developers and surrounding homeowners want to keep it green.

BTW, the silliest "I was there second" lawsuit I ever heard was in Chicago, where a gentrifying north side neighbor hood sued to have a chocolate factory that had been there since the 1800's stop operating, because of the "noxious odors."  I always thought that the smell of warm chocolate was pretty good myself!  I would have sued later after gaining about 400 lbs.....

OT, but while I'm on the subject, watching the Dallas Stars the other night, they had to press a rookie goalie into action, who had a shut out going for 59:59 and then lost the game in OT, despite making over 40 saves.  After they gave up the last second goal, the announcer, thinking they were off the air for a commercial commented that the goalie ought to sue his teammates for their performance.........

[George Pazin]

Serendipity provided that as I read this thread, John Lennon's Imagine kicked in on our music service.

(I'm not going to waste everyone's time putting this into verse, so don't try to sing the song in your head - if someone else wants to try, have at it!)

Imagine there's an Old Course in every city - what do you think the results would be?

Maybe a few:

Better etiquette? The flip side of Rick's argument above is that maybe if people were forced to see and consider fellow golfers, they'd be more likely to have good habits carry over - thoughtful play, speedy play, etc.

More acceptance of quirk? Maybe if people were confronted with blind bunkers on a regular basis, they'd be more accepting of the occasional one on other courses.

More emphasis on green complexes, less emphasis on defined driving elements? A personal pet peeve of mine - seems like most folks want black and white architecture, rather than shades of gray, or even better, an infinite palette of color.

More acceptance/recognition of the role ground contours play in keeping the game interesting Another personal pet peeve - modern fairways seem too perfectly graded; I'd love to see more rumple.

Maybe more acceptance of fun as a criterion for superlative golf courses, as opposed to harsh challenge?

More acceptance of the beauty of firm and fast?

A greater understanding of how a course is revealed through repeat play, as opposed to hit and run ratings?

Just some thoughts.

Go ahead and imagine some of your own - it's easy if you try.

 

[JC Jones]

Jeff -

I could see that.  Although, were I a defense lawyer, I'd argue that we dont hold architects of baseball stadiums liable when there is an obvious risk that people will get hit with baseballs, bats, etc.

I cant stand "i was there second" lawsuits.  Then again, I tend to lean too hard on the personal responsibility side of things.

[BCrosby]

I had an associate do a West Law search on the topic a couple of years ago. There are very few reported cases involving architectural negligence. The ones we found went back several decades and each turned on a fairly unique set of facts. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot cases settled or unreported. But it does not sound like a "fertile field". (Would it be that a liability insurance co. was saying that?)

As noted, virtually all courts take an assumption of risk view. You play golf, you assume the risk of being hit by an errant ball.

As I recall, course operators have been found negligent for a number of reasons, usually involving cart crashes.

But I have never understood the high level of architect anxiety about getting sued because a player might get hit by an errant ball on a course they designed.

Bob  

[JC Jones]

I had an associate do a West Law search on the topic a couple of years ago. There are very few reported cases involving architectural negligence. The ones we found went back several decades and each turned on a fairly unique set of facts. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot cases settled or unreported. But it does not sound like a "fertile field". (Would it be that a liability insurance co. was saying that?)

As noted, virtually all courts take an assumption of risk view. You play golf, you assume the risk of being hit by an errant ball.

As I recall, course operators have been found negligent for a number of reasons, usually involving cart crashes.

But I have never understood the high level of architect anxiety about getting sued because a player might get hit by an errant ball on a course they designed.

Bob  

What would you partners do without us associates

[John Mayhugh]

More acceptance of quirk? Maybe if people were confronted with blind bunkers on a regular basis, they'd be more accepting of the occasional one on other courses.

More emphasis on green complexes, less emphasis on defined driving elements? A personal pet peeve of mine - seems like most folks want black and white architecture, rather than shades of gray, or even better, an infinite palette of color.

More acceptance/recognition of the role ground contours play in keeping the game interesting Another personal pet peeve - modern fairways seem too perfectly graded; I'd love to see more rumple.

Maybe more acceptance of fun as a criterion for superlative golf courses, as opposed to harsh challenge?

More acceptance of the beauty of firm and fast?

A greater understanding of how a course is revealed through repeat play, as opposed to hit and run ratings?

Just some thoughts.

Go ahead and imagine some of your own - it's easy if you try.

 

This is why I come here!  

I think you could build something very much like TOC in the US and have a fantastic course.  I know TOC needs wind to be really tough, but even w/o wind it can be a lot of fun.  

Maybe you have to be a lot better than me to "imagine" a course with double greens, blind or quirky bunkering, and less definition being boring or too easy.  That's the kind of features that would keep me coming back.  Because the course can't play the same way every time.  

Look at some of the pics from Longshadow.  It's not copying TOC, but Mike's got the right idea.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Augusta National enbodied the spirit of TOC and I would build one anytime.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()