Golf injuries/incidents (including liability and insurance)

[Thomas Dai]

When a 1:68" projectile travels long distances without making any sound, and big strong amateur players, and there are many about, have much wider dispersion patterns than the elite pro's we see on TV, what does this do for general golf facility and individual player insurance premiums and thus the overall cost of golf?

In this respect it is worth recalling the Paris Ryder Cup when a lady spectator lost the sight in one eye when hit by an incoming 1:68" projectile. What if the lady in question had been off-premises?
Thoughts?
atb

[SB]

I can't speak for the pro game, but at the facility level, claims from flying balls are pretty rare.  Every time I've seen one, it's because one member of a group hit when he shouldn't and nailed his buddy so it's not the course's problem.  From what I've seen, insurance costs are much more driven by things like fires, floods, slips & falls, and theft.  Those sort of things happen all the time and they can be very large dollars.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, I think the order of golf course lawsuits starts with slip and fall (and then, mostly around the clubhouse) cart accidents, and then ball strikes, with the course liability being greater for surrounding property than golfers on the course.  That said, they may be required to fix something that has shown a pattern or reoccurrence. I have seen club insurance policies, and many have more coverage for the pro or GM changing jobs, roof damage, silverware (against theft) and the like than they do for course repair if damaged by weather.


I know for gca types errors and omissions insurance, which would cover design related lawsuits, varies widely, with big market fluctuations.  I have paid as much as $13K a year, and as low as $5K a year, so its not terrible.

[David_Tepper]

Thomas D. -

Can't you buy an individual insurance policy in the UK for 25 pounds a year which insures you against any damage to person or property you might cause by striking a golf ball? These policies also usually insure against your golf clubs being stolen.


https://www.golfcare.co.uk/

"Every golfer needs insurance. No matter how good your game is or how careful you are, playing golf always comes with the risk of an accident.
Golf players are held responsible if their wayward shot (or even their club) hits someone else and causes injury. Golf Public Liability insurance covers you if you cause injury to another golfer or damage someone's property. While playing golf, your legal liability is protected up to £5 million."


DT

[Dave McCollum]

As for course insurance, ours runs significantly more than the max quoted by Jeff.  But we have other stuff going on besides golf--fish farming, energy production, zip line, and catering.   

[Adam Clayman]

Does having a Tree management program help mitigate exposure?


Does not having a tree management program, having indiscriminately over plant trees, to the point that golfers can't see other golfers to forewarn, increase liability?

[SB]

Does having a Tree management program help mitigate exposure?


Does not having a tree management program, having indiscriminately over plant trees, to the point that golfers can't see other golfers to forewarn, increase liability?

I would think it would reduce liability because they prevent balls from reaching others in the first place.  Much better than relying on someone to jump out of the way.

When I fill out my forms that they use to determine the premiums, here's what they ask for:
Number of rounds
Revenue by categorySize and type of construction of clubhouse and all other buildingsCost and list of all equipment, furniture, etc.
That's pretty much it.  Nobody comes and looks at the course, nobody is counting trees.  Nobody is measuring how dangerous a particular hole is.  I think the assumption is that all courses are generally equally dangerous or they are spreading that risk across a portfolio, if it's unreasonably dangerous they are going after the designer, and if they get more than one claim for a particular design feature, they will tell you to make it safer or they will drop you.  Not to mention, most of the liability is on the golfer.  The facility didn't force you to hit three inches behind the ball and shank it onto the adjacent green.  Maybe for a new course, but not an older one.  They have years of claim history to figure out the risk.

[Thomas Dai]

What about older courses, ie ones that have been around quite a while and so no liability can be attached to a particular designer? Someone’s still been hurt or injured or their property’s been damaged in some way and they and their lawyer friends will be looking for some compensation cash so whose insurance pays-up?
Atb


PS - ref DT’s comment, individual/personal golf insurance is available in the UK. How many take it up is another question however as is knowledge or admission of who may have hit the fateful shot, or shots, that went over the hedge into Mr and Mrs Neighbours garden or hit Mr Bloggs riding his bicycle along the road or landed in the babies pram being pushed along the adjacent pavement by Grannie Smith.


PSS - I wonder who did end up paying-out in relation to the Paris Ryder Cup incident? Things seemed to go rather quite rather quickly on this one. A factual rather than a speculative answer to this would be appreciated.

[James Boon]

Arent any members of England Golf affiliated clubs covered for personal liability? From their website:
https://www.englandgolf.org/article/personal-liability-insurance-for-all-members/



"As a member of England Golf you receive £10m personal liability insurance.
This benefit is part of your affiliation and is provided by England Golf, working with specialist insurance broker Bluefin Sport. The insurance is underwritten by Allianz.

Members are covered when playing or practising golf at any golf club or recognised practice facility in the UK, Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man, in the event that they are held liable for injuring someone or causing serious property damage at a golf facility."

Cheers,

James

[SB]

What about older courses, ie ones that have been around quite a while and so no liability can be attached to a particular designer? Someone’s still been hurt or injured or their property’s been damaged in some way and they and their lawyer friends will be looking for some compensation cash so whose insurance pays-up?
Atb

If the course has been around for 100 years or even 30 and nobody has been injured in that time, then it clearly isn't the designer's fault or the course owners fault.   The person who hit the shot will be liable, and I think it is covered by their homeowner's policy.  If they don't own a home then I suppose the injured is out of luck and I hope they have good health insurance.

[Tom_Doak]

Does having a Tree management program help mitigate exposure?


Does not having a tree management program, having indiscriminately over plant trees, to the point that golfers can't see other golfers to forewarn, increase liability?

When telling a club to remove trees, I am keenly aware that if a golfer gets hit there afterwards, someone might sue me for having removed something that could have protected them.


The trees between 6-7-8 at Pasatiempo are a great example.  They are awful as far as the golf is concerned, but years ago before they were there, a golfer on 8 green was hit (and killed, I believe) from a pull hook off 7 tee.  Removing those trees, with the knowledge that it happened before and could happen again, is not something I would care to defend in court.

[Adam Clayman]

I take real issue with the assumption that trees protect you.


If the trees have been planted in such a manner, after the Architect is dead and buried, hiding both the struck, and the striker, from seeing each other, that's real negligence.


I'd much rather have the Forewarning, so I could cover up and avoid serious injury.


Isn't it true that people rarely if ever get hit on the Old Course?

[Sean_A]

I take real issue with the assumption that trees protect you.

If the trees have been planted in such a manner, after the Architect is dead and buried, hiding both the struck, and the striker, from seeing each other, that's real negligence.

I'd much rather have the Forewarning, so I could cover up and avoid serious injury.

Isn't it true that people rarely if ever get hit on the Old Course?

+1.  I like to see the danger rather than have the false sense of protection trees provide...if I am on the course.  If off the course, yes to trees, nets or whatever because I am not paying attention to the golf.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Taking heed of a potential incoming 1:68" missile or before hitting a shot yourself being aware of those who may be in a position of concern has always been part of the game and I'm on the side of 'seeing the incoming missile'  or seeing the person in potential danger when it comes to on-course situations.
With 1:68' missiles going so far these days though determination of 'range of heed or awareness' isn't that easy in on-course situations even with 20-20 eyesight and as far as balls going off-course into surrounding neighbourhoods, well, the envelope of such shots is now pretty wide and getting wider.
Which is my point about insurance coverage and cost. If the golfing authorities fail to regulate, ie rollback equipment, especially the ball, will there come a time where courses, clubs, individuals even won't be able to get insurance coverage or the premiums for such will become exceptionally high? It may well be that these days the likelihood of a golf ball inflicted injury or damage is probably greater than a Clubhouse fire. Where's the true risk within golf, the risk insurance is supposed to cover, these days?
Shame Ian Andrew isn't posting here anymore as he wrote very well on this kind of matter.
atb

[David_Tepper]

Thomas D. -

Of all the costs associated with how much further a golf ball flies these days, I suspect rising insurance premiums are at the very bottom of that list, if they are on that list at all.

DT

 

[Ed Brzezowski]

Does having a Tree management program help mitigate exposure?


Does not having a tree management program, having indiscriminately over plant trees, to the point that golfers can't see other golfers to forewarn, increase liability?

I would think it would reduce liability because they prevent balls from reaching others in the first place.  Much better than relying on someone to jump out of the way.

When I fill out my forms that they use to determine the premiums, here's what they ask for:
Number of rounds
Revenue by categorySize and type of construction of clubhouse and all other buildingsCost and list of all equipment, furniture, etc.
That's pretty much it.  Nobody comes and looks at the course, nobody is counting trees.  Nobody is measuring how dangerous a particular hole is.  I think the assumption is that all courses are generally equally dangerous or they are spreading that risk across a portfolio, if it's unreasonably dangerous they are going after the designer, and if they get more than one claim for a particular design feature, they will tell you to make it safer or they will drop you.  Not to mention, most of the liability is on the golfer.  The facility didn't force you to hit three inches behind the ball and shank it onto the adjacent green.  Maybe for a new course, but not an older one.  They have years of claim history to figure out the risk.

Being in the business and writing golf clubs you rarely see a "hit by a ball " claim. Most  liability claims center around club social activities and adult beverages being served. Some come from slip and fall accidents at the pool and the kid that always gets a finger cut by a pool ladder. Honestly i'm more concerned about someone on this site pulling a muscle when lifting Toms new book, its a beast . i may need a bigger coffee table.


ed

[Kalen Braley]

I would still challenge the notion that by the time someone yells fore, looking up and spotting the ball before it hits you is next to impossible, especially when its travelling approx 100 MPH off a driver head.


When i'm on the course, and I hear Fore, I immediately curl and protect my dome as best as possible. 

[David_Tepper]

Kalen -

I agree with you. Being able to pick up a view of a 1.68" projectile in flight coming from another fairway is at best difficult.


Having played a lot of golf on the narrow, tree-lined Presidio Golf Course, the one thing that keeps the course from being a absolute shooting gallery are the cypress and pine trees that line the fairways. You could say the same thing for some of the holes at Harding Park.


DT

[Jon Wiggett]

I would still challenge the notion that by the time someone yells fore, looking up and spotting the ball before it hits you is next to impossible, especially when its travelling approx 100 MPH off a driver head.


When i'm on the course, and I hear Fore, I immediately curl and protect my dome as best as possible.

Kalen,


being hit by a ball is generally only dangerous if you are within 30-40 yards of the strike point. Once you get over a hundred yards the ball has lost much of its speed and though it might still hurt it will probably not be dangerous. Within 40 yards whether you can see the ball or not is irrelevant as you won't be able to take evasive action. Further away, if you hear someone shout fore and you are stupid enough to try and spot the ball instead of protecting your head then maybe you deserve to be hit.


Jon

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

I was only providing a counter point to others who implied they'd much rather be able see the ball and not be blocked by trees.  I'm with you, when I hear Fore, i'm covering up first and asking questions later...

P.S.  As for golf balls, they certainly are very dangerous even on the tail end of a 300 yard drive...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2018/10/03/brooks-koepka-reaction-ryder-cup-tee-shot/1508035002/

[David_Tepper]

being hit by a ball is generally only dangerous if you are within 30-40 yards of the strike point.
Jon W. -

I once got hit in the chest with a golf ball 150 yards or so from the tee box. I staggered for a moment or two. It left a remarkable bruise that turned red-blue-green-yellow over the 10-12 days it took to heal. It reminded me of the bruises I used to get in the back of my legs from getting hit point blank with a squash ball.

DT   

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I was only providing a counter point to others who implied they'd much rather be able see the ball and not be blocked by trees.  I'm with you, when I hear Fore, i'm covering up first and asking questions later...

P.S.  As for golf balls, they certainly are very dangerous even on the tail end of a 300 yard drive...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2018/10/03/brooks-koepka-reaction-ryder-cup-tee-shot/1508035002/

Kalen,


the counter point is very important in most discussions and it is nice to see others making them. I feel extremely sorry for the lady in the article it is truly dreadful what happened to her. I am in no way blaming her for what happened. Had she have taken appropriate action however it would have resulted in a bruise and nothing more.


David,


I can imagine that being hit full force by a squash ball must hurt. I understand that more people die through being hit by tennis balls than any other type of ball but this might just be 'urban myth'


Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon,

I was only providing a counter point to others who implied they'd much rather be able see the ball and not be blocked by trees.  I'm with you, when I hear Fore, i'm covering up first and asking questions later...

P.S.  As for golf balls, they certainly are very dangerous even on the tail end of a 300 yard drive...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2018/10/03/brooks-koepka-reaction-ryder-cup-tee-shot/1508035002/

You are missing the point. If I can see golfers hitting in my general direction before they hit I can keep an eye on the situation and stay in a relatively safer position...they can also see me and may decide not to hit. Once you play enough open courses it is natural to pay attention to other golfers...and non golfers...who quite frankly are the bigger worry. Staying safe on a course is the responsibility of all golfers. How they hell can one be properly responsible when the danger can't be seen? Unless we are talking about course perimeter, in which case the outside parties can't be expected to pay attention to on course activity, trees for safety are basically a scam designed to absolve golfers of taking responsibility for themselves and others. It's a typical bullshit modern idea.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

If you are about to tee-off and you see someone who might be at risk do you tee-off anyway or wait a little or exchange waves to acknowledge one another's situation and positioning or do you just hit?

If you are about to tee-off and can't see someone because there's a tree obscuring their position do you just tee-off anyway and then the person behind the tree, who hasn't seen you either because of the tree, walks out from behind the tree and gets hit.

I would suggest the on-course aspects of this matter are about awareness and that there's generally more awareness and consideration for other players when greater visibility is present.

The off-course situation is different however, especially now that the 1:68" missile is able to travel so far. I would suggest that it is the shot that that goes over the hedge into Mr and Mrs Neighbours garden or hit Mr Bloggs riding his bicycle along the road or landed in the babies pram being pushed along the adjacent pavement by Grannie Smith that is ultimately going to effect the game the most and that the ability to acquire or cost of insurance coverage for this could be an issue down the line if not already.
atb

Later edit - here are GCA threads about a legal claim in relation to Quaker Ridge in the US -
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68072.0.html
and
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,61439.0.html

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

The point is well taken, there is no doubt a benefit to golfers being able to see each other on the course, and acknowledge they are there.  But I'd have to think in a situation where the other person is unaware, being struck by a ball after going thru a tree or large bush would be a far less dangerous situation due to the amount of energy being absorbed by the tree/shrubs. But I do understand many links courses are treeless. However it does raise another interesting question, should blind shots also be minimized?

P.S. The only time I've been struck on a course is the latter scenario, where I heard the fore, then the ball rattling in the tree before dropping harmlessly on my shoulder.