DCB
Well-known member
Interesting outcome of another golf damages case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27839876
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27839876
Common Sense Prevails
- Thread starter DCB
- Start date
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
I agree. Mind you the article mentions an agreement for damages has already been agreed by the solicitors (less their hefty cut no doubt) so I don't doubt he will get a good lump sum.
C
c1973
Guest
Spotters are going to end up in full PPE now. Hard hats, safety goggles the lot.
Bluestripes
Newbie
The BBC report is slightly misleading, as they seem to be referring in part to their report last year, when the case was ongoing.Mr McMahon will not receive any money. The lawyers had agreed last year how much he was to get in damages if he managed to establish that Mr Dear was to blame. The court found that Mr Dear was not to blame for the accident, so Mr McMahon won't get a pay out.
Foxholer
Blackballed
And it may have created a dangerous precedent that a shout of 'Fore' is not required!
While he may not have got a payout for negligence, he may have got one for accidental injury.
It's quite possible that the case was actually brought to establish which party was liable for the payment.
They might find it a little more difficult to get ball spotters in future - without suitable cover or (as posted above) protection!
While he may not have got a payout for negligence, he may have got one for accidental injury.
It's quite possible that the case was actually brought to establish which party was liable for the payment.
They might find it a little more difficult to get ball spotters in future - without suitable cover or (as posted above) protection!
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Quite possibly. The 50k is a neat round number and happens to be the same as many a golf insurance policy pays out for personal accident
sev112
Tour Winner
Yes, this is often the source of those rubbish articles in th press about "safety gone mad"; in reality when someone's child or parent has been seriously permanently disabled or brain damaged say, then the costs of care for the rest of their life is humongous; hence the legal cases are taken forward NOT to punish an individual or employer per se, but to access the insurance that would be available.
Now some may say that the burden of that goes on all our various premiums, but in the absence of this approach, everyone loses because you won't get that money back from any individual other than the very rich. It is why Employer's Liability Insurance is a legal requirement in the UK, for these sort of cases.
Which is why I was surprised that in this case they attempted to make a case against the individual, whereas one would think that a case against the promoter of the competition might have been potentially more successful, especially because the promoter puts the spotter in the potentially hazardous position whereas the golfer did not.
But that's why I don't learn gazillions as a lawyer I suppose
