Car hit in car park

[Airlie_Andy]

Feel for you but cant see how this can get sorted. At my club there are signs on all tees telling golfers to be careful of property when a hole is near houses. This could be argued that the club is doing everything possible to protect it neighbours. The club also asks that people whos balls go over fences to report it to pro shop after their round, whether they know damaged has been caused or not.

I don't understand this logic at all. A sign saying be careful of property close to the course does not remove the risk or reduce the likelihood of hitting a bad shot. Golfers don't intentionally hit wayward shots but it frequently happens. Simply putting a sign up is most definately not doing everything possible. If anything it's the bare minimum.

 

[duncan mackie]

I don't understand this logic at all. A sign saying be careful of property close to the course does not remove the risk or reduce the likelihood of hitting a bad shot. Golfers don't intentionally hit wayward shots but it frequently happens. Simply putting a sign up is most definately not doing everything possible. If anything it's the bare minimum.

actually it's worse than a minimum - it's a recognition of the existence of a risk!

the bare minimum would probably be routing the fairway away from the area, creating an addition OOB on that side - that sort of thing.

after that there are a number of physical barrier options

but I agree, sign's about as much use as a chocolate golf ball

 

[shivas irons]

I used to manage a club that hosted two or three events a year that attracted up to a thousand attendee's...

At one of these events a PA mast fell on to a parked car damaging its roof... Car was parked in an area designated for spectators and not intended for parking vehicles... Driver was to say a little upset and demanded club agreed to footing the repair bill... Despite my pointing out his car was incorrectly parked he kept argueing his point... His wife/girlfriend also waded in using some language a lady shouldn't even know let alone use!

To cut a long story short he eventually agreed that the matter was refered to clubs public liability insurers... His solicitors argued that club was at fault for failing to secure mast properly and insufficient signage etc etc... Well he got his payout... Personally still puzzled as to why...

The guy got he`s payout because the PA mast was obviously not secured properly,You can thank God that it didnt fall onto a spectator in the "spectator area" as the liabilities would have been huge........

 

[Region3]

Not very relevant, but I came across this sign whilst searching for something else on Google.

 

[MegaSteve]

The guy got he`s payout because the PA mast was obviously not secured properly,You can thank God that it didnt fall onto a spectator in the "spectator area" as the liabilities would have been huge........

Define "obviously not secured properly"... I had been a key organiser at many such events and had done more H+S walks than I care to remember... And club 'erection team' had most probably put the masts up and down more times than they cared to remember also...

There were no witnesses and my suspicion always was that there was some 'outside' help involved but there was never anyway it could be proved...

All sorts of signage was in place and we were more or less told it counted for nowt... Which was the point of my first post in the thread... "At owners risk" is worthless... Get the right legal team and you can blow a hole in any regulation... Claim was for about a grand which is why I believe insurers paid up without a fight... Most probably cost a lot more if it had got to court... Glad it didn't in a way as filling out all the relevant reports etc had taken up enough of my life already...