Far Reaching Repercussions ?

[DCB]

You may remember a post I started a while back about a legal case being pusued by an injured golfer. Well, today the judgement was made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15594541

 

[USER1999]

Not good.

 

[Sundance]

Surely that's a risk you sign up to when you decide to play golf? I should imagine he wont have many people willing to play a round with him anymore. I most definitely wouldn't and I'd like to think most golfers would think the same. Absolutely ridiculous!

 

[Monty_Brown]

Quote from the BBC report that set alarm bells ringing:

"Lord Brailsford said a golfer of Mr Gordon's experience should have been aware of the risk his tee shot posed to Mr Phee, adding that Niddry Castle golf club failed in its duty to provide proper safety signs."

I really worry about this. Everyone acknlowedges the guy shouted fore, so what else could he have done? And also, what would signs have done? Everyone on a course is aware that there are golf balls in the air and landing at various points.

Very bad news for the game.

 

[jammag]

I dont think this is a suprise really with the society we live in now. Yes there is always a chance this may happen. But say you got hurt at work by a machine that went wrong slightly would you not want compensation? would you accept its just a risk of the job and you knew this when you signed up for the job that this may happen? At the end of the day the ball was where it shouldnt of been as such and any legal company wouldve taken this up as its a guranteed win in this day and age.

 

[Monty_Brown]

"But the judge accepted evidence from Mr Phee and his playing companions that, on hearing the call, he ducked or cowered while putting his left hand up to shield his head. "

And yet the ball, on a downward trajectory, hit him in the eye.

 

[coolhand]

Sounds like an absolutely daft decision
but I wonder if there's more to it.
Would it be as ridiculous if it was on
a crossing hole with no warning signs and the guy on the tee could
see that the claimant was crossing his fairway?

 

[triple_bogey]

"But the judge accepted evidence from Mr Phee and his playing companions that, on hearing the call, he ducked or cowered while putting his left hand up to shield his head. "

And yet the ball, on a downward trajectory, hit him in the eye.

Exactly!

The golf insurance companies are using this story to scare players in buying into their policies, having a field day.

 

[GB72]

Insurance should form part of your membership fee even if it means an increase. That way the club and all golfers on the course would be protected. Pay and play fees should be increased to cover the golfer for the day.

 

[Monty_Brown]

Sounds like an absolutely daft decision
but I wonder if there's more to it.
Would it be as ridiculous if it was on
a crossing hole with no warning signs and the guy on the tee could
see that the claimant was crossing his fairway?

Fair point... guess we all only have a partial view based on one report. Would be interesting to hear more of the evidence. Based on what we've heard it seems daft, but there must be more to it?

 

[jammag]

A downwards trajectory could mean it came from straight down to near enough dead flat and anywhere in between so if he put his hand say on his forehead to protect from the ball coming in on that angle he wouldnt of been protected from the flattish line of a ball. Problem for with insurance at golf clubs would be the fact that say there is a flat rate of £50 to start off with, this incident that happened would then increase the insurance up to an average of £150 per player at this club. As any insurance company is going to want to make there money back. Now say 50% of players say im not paying that and move clubs which would probably kill that club off. Now the player who caused this incident wants to come and join your club now the insurance companies will still be thinking this guy caused £400k worth of damage we are going to up the rates if this guy joins to an extra £150 for the insurance per player, now you as a member are not going to be happy that this guy has come over and created a whole load more money that you have to spend on your subs, a) are you going to try get this player out of your club b) move clubs c) anything else you would consider?

Also other point is the insurance would cover members, would you then want to push up green fees for roll up players by 20% or so?

I feel if insurance was required it would end up very expensive once people start making claims and then price people out of the game. No insurance company would take it on unless it made a profit.

 

[palindromicbob]

I thought there had been a case a few years back where the judge ruled that being hit was a risk that people where taking when going out to play golf. Might have been the US though.

Either way although this incident does bring insurance to the forefront I feel that it's something that any responsible golfer should have anyway.

I got insurance for the princely sum of £20 on top of my membership fees. Small price to pay for piece of mind. It's not just other golfers that a lot of us must think of though. With other golfers there is always the argument "they should know the risk" but how many times have you heard of balls ending up in car parks, across roads or (as is often the case at my club) landing in back yards. If your ball where struck into these areas and you caused injury, the fault lies with the person who hit and the club for not providing sufficient barriers. Any decent responsible club should have public liability insurance which you'll already be paying for in your fees regardless of if you take out personal cover or not. So they'll be covered for any claims and whatever increase in insurance is going to be passe on regardless. But what about you if such a thing happened?

 

[DCB]

I wouldn't worry about the club, it has to have insurance and will currently have insurance in place. It's the individual golfer that this will affect more. Here's one golfer that has had 70% liability apportioned to him.

Not good at all.

 

[bladeplayer]

They all admitted hearing FORE
, what more can the offending golfer do ? golfers of all abilities are to be found on courses so a risk of getting hit is pretty high , this should be appealed , the club should be more to blame if there were no signs warning of the danger , ok if he was a member he probably should have known , club still have duty of care to remind players of the danger ,

 

[Jonny]

Not the first time a decision of this sort has gone this way. I recall something a few years ago where a judge ruled that the shouting of FORE does not mitigate liability for any damage caused to a person by a golf ball you struck. That was well publicised by the insurance companies and this is no real shock.

The thing which bothers me is that the club is liable for an idiot not looking where they are going.

 

[lobthewedge]

There must be something more to this, or at least I really hope there is. You cant really comment on the ruling unless you know how far off line the guy hit his drive and where the 'victim' was in relation to him and the intended target.

 

[Robobum]

The pro tours better watch out!! Perhaps that's why they don't shout fore as they know it doesn't make any difference. Hit spectators will be after a lot more than a signed glove!!!

 

[chrisd]

It does worry me as someone who's been hit and know how easy it is to get struck. Our course is beside a motorway and on some holes it is almost impossible to hear a shout of fore. Is someone got badly injured though, this ruling, if it becomes a precedent, says that shouting fore doesn't really exonerate the player! I fail to see what sineage has to do with it - every golfer knows the dangers so unless the judge is saying that the danger was a specific one on that course (say, a green close to a tee box) rather than the general danger that applies just by playing the game then all of golf should be worried





Chris

 

[johnboywalton]

I do not know where this will lead, although it is shocking to lose an eye, there was clearly no malice and it was a pure accident. Surely you should not be persecuted for hitting a bad shot, for me that is what it comes down too and I agree with Chris, what difference would signs have made.....

 

[Monty_Brown]

The pro tours better watch out!! Perhaps that's why they don't shout fore as they know it doesn't make any difference. Hit spectators will be after a lot more than a signed glove!!!

The pro tours should really think hard about this judgement. Plenty of people think the pros no longer shout fore because they would rather the ball DID hit a spectator and stopped it going further offline. Imagine if one of these uber-rich tour pros seriously hurt someone and had not given any warning. £400,000 compo would pale into insignificance next to the payout they would face.