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?