You took the words right out my mouth there, however he did say he would take it out for a hole in one. But I guess he does not think that will ever happen
Far Reaching Repercussions ?
- Thread starter DCB
- Start date
You took the words right out my mouth there, however he did say he would take it out for a hole in one. But I guess he does not think that will ever happen
S
Snelly
Guest
You took the words right out my mouth there, however he did say he would take it out for a hole in one. But I guess he does not think that will ever happen
It hasn't so far! But I hope it will and I have had an albatross which is some small consolation....
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
so basically this decision will no doubt frighten everyone into running out and getting insurance. so from the 400k pay out , the insurance companies might get 1000 new policies at £30-40 each.
Well done on your Albatross & who knows you may still get a hole in one
But TBH £30 is a small price to pay for piece of mind & like I say if you use the free rounds & the other stuff you insurance/membership gives you then the cost disappears....
lobthewedge
Challenge Tour Pro
They might as well mug you in the street, robbing b****rds. Like someone else said, £30 just now but just wait til all the false claims start flooding in on the back of this judgement.
I for one will not be investing.
daymond
Tour Rookie
If you were on the 18th tee in question would you not either wait for the four ball to get to the 18th tee or get their attention so that they can stop and watch you tee off? The sanario occurs time and time again. If you now care not to do this and you have no insurane you will be in deep do do.
sev112
Tour Winner
i find this judgement "interesting" because it is case law.
Often the crappy perss jump up and down about compensation culture, when in fact most oif these cases are usually civil cases where someone has "accidentallY" been seriously injured for life. In such circumstances, if there is an insurance policy in place, there appears to be a tacit basis to "use" the availability of the policy to look after the injured inidvidual.
There was a case a couple of years back where something like a nieghbour took the nice old guy next door to court because he ran over their little boy who ran out behind the reversing car. The parents basically said that they didnt hold anything against the neighbour, but he held an insurance policy and they had 60 years of looking after a disabled son to deal with. And that's how teh judgement went.
Now one could say that justice wasn't strictly correct, but it was probably served in the end
Often the crappy perss jump up and down about compensation culture, when in fact most oif these cases are usually civil cases where someone has "accidentallY" been seriously injured for life. In such circumstances, if there is an insurance policy in place, there appears to be a tacit basis to "use" the availability of the policy to look after the injured inidvidual.
There was a case a couple of years back where something like a nieghbour took the nice old guy next door to court because he ran over their little boy who ran out behind the reversing car. The parents basically said that they didnt hold anything against the neighbour, but he held an insurance policy and they had 60 years of looking after a disabled son to deal with. And that's how teh judgement went.
Now one could say that justice wasn't strictly correct, but it was probably served in the end
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Don't really want to keep this thread going past it's sell by date but just a few thoughts in the light of some of the comments above.
Interesting how many people say they accept the risks when they walk on the course and even think this is all a scam by lawyers/insurance companies.
The thing is there are some idiots who will do things that cause harm to others even if that wasn't their intention or they thought what they were doing was OK. There are also nice considerate people who sadly make dreadful errors of judgement.
How many of us feel that when we venture onto the road we simply accept the risks associated with sharing the road with other drivers? If some twerp rear ends us we'd want his insurance to pay for the damage. Why is the golf course any different? Why expect someone to pay for a broken rear light but not compensate you for costing you your eyesight?
Quite rightly we expect others to show due regard to our safety and to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences if they don't and that principle is established in law. Why should the law stop at the first tee?
There will be cases where it may be unclear whether someone who caused an injury acted without proper regard for the safety of the person who was hurt and we need a decision one way or the other. That's what the courts are there for and this was one of those cases.
People may argue the merits of the particular case but it could easily have been more clear cut. It is the principle that is important. The law protects you from the negligent acts of others on the golf course just as it does elsewhere. That seems fair enough to me.
Equally it might be one of us who thinks we were acting safely when in fact our judgement was wrong (we're none of us perfect after all) and, however unintentionally, we cause someone else to suffer a serious injury. That's what insurance is for. Unlike on the road you don't have to have it and that's your choice. Accidents like this are rare and maybe the risk is very small.
Of course if you do hit someone and they sue you, you can try telling the judge that it's all a conspiracy by insurance companies and lawyers or that your victim should have accepted the risks associated with being on the same golf course as you, just don't be surprised if it doesn't get you off.
Interesting how many people say they accept the risks when they walk on the course and even think this is all a scam by lawyers/insurance companies.
The thing is there are some idiots who will do things that cause harm to others even if that wasn't their intention or they thought what they were doing was OK. There are also nice considerate people who sadly make dreadful errors of judgement.
How many of us feel that when we venture onto the road we simply accept the risks associated with sharing the road with other drivers? If some twerp rear ends us we'd want his insurance to pay for the damage. Why is the golf course any different? Why expect someone to pay for a broken rear light but not compensate you for costing you your eyesight?
Quite rightly we expect others to show due regard to our safety and to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences if they don't and that principle is established in law. Why should the law stop at the first tee?
There will be cases where it may be unclear whether someone who caused an injury acted without proper regard for the safety of the person who was hurt and we need a decision one way or the other. That's what the courts are there for and this was one of those cases.
People may argue the merits of the particular case but it could easily have been more clear cut. It is the principle that is important. The law protects you from the negligent acts of others on the golf course just as it does elsewhere. That seems fair enough to me.
Equally it might be one of us who thinks we were acting safely when in fact our judgement was wrong (we're none of us perfect after all) and, however unintentionally, we cause someone else to suffer a serious injury. That's what insurance is for. Unlike on the road you don't have to have it and that's your choice. Accidents like this are rare and maybe the risk is very small.
Of course if you do hit someone and they sue you, you can try telling the judge that it's all a conspiracy by insurance companies and lawyers or that your victim should have accepted the risks associated with being on the same golf course as you, just don't be surprised if it doesn't get you off.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Nothing's really changed Snelly.
Last week, if you tee'd off and blocked the drive a bit, right into the path of 3 guys heading down the adjacent fairway, you'd call "Fore". If the ball hit one of them, regardless of whether they were taking avoiding action or not, you'd be liable for any damage caused. If it's just a pair of broken specs then a couple of hundred should cover it, But should you take somone's eye out the have you got 400k lying around not doing much....?
We have to have car insurance because the risk of collision is astronomically high. The risk on a Golf Course is astronomically low but it's still there.
I take your point - it's not a necessity. But I don't have hundreds of pounds available to pay compensation with let alone thousands or hundreds of thousands.
Just say you did hit someone. Just say you did take en eye out.
Could you find the money for the certain compensation claim coming your way...?
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
unless im missing something. if the guy sued isnt a home owner, what is to stop him declaring himself bankrupt and not paying the debt.. hyperthetically speaking of course.
S
Snelly
Guest
The odds are on my side of the argument and the risk is so small it is worth taking. Very isolated incidents like this and the scare story tactics from insurance companies create the impression that the risk is far higher than it actually is.
I haven't hit anyone in 25 years of golf and I don't plan to. If I did, I think the chances of them losing an eye (or receiving a major injury) are very small too.
I think there is more chance of winning the lottery than this misfortune occurring to one of us. For those who are risk averse, I can see the appeal but I am not like that and would never buy an insurance product like this.
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
Snelly, im totally with you 100%, but after a situation on Sunday it has got me thinking.
On our 2nd this time of year i'm lucky if i can drive up to our fairway bunker off the whites, that's if i absolutely nail it. so Sunday, waiting on the tee we watch the boys in front play their second from short of the bunker, they proceed to walk up past the bunker and over the brow of the hill, the two shorter hitters in the group fire off and then im up... now bare in mind two people have taken their shot and with pre shot routine etc, it must have been around 5 mins since the first tee's off, so i even classed the group as well out of reach.
WALLOP!... absolute peach of a drive but from where were was looked like it was going to drop about 20 yards short of them. on the next them, on the next tee the guy in front comes up and claimed teh ball was within feet of he's head, in fact the ball hadn't landed until it had cleared them and it landed about 20ft in front of them. Lucky enough i knew the group in front well, but part of me is thinking if that hit them full blown from that distance and speed, i could be in major trouble. Is £30.00 a year really worth it......
On our 2nd this time of year i'm lucky if i can drive up to our fairway bunker off the whites, that's if i absolutely nail it. so Sunday, waiting on the tee we watch the boys in front play their second from short of the bunker, they proceed to walk up past the bunker and over the brow of the hill, the two shorter hitters in the group fire off and then im up... now bare in mind two people have taken their shot and with pre shot routine etc, it must have been around 5 mins since the first tee's off, so i even classed the group as well out of reach.
WALLOP!... absolute peach of a drive but from where were was looked like it was going to drop about 20 yards short of them. on the next them, on the next tee the guy in front comes up and claimed teh ball was within feet of he's head, in fact the ball hadn't landed until it had cleared them and it landed about 20ft in front of them. Lucky enough i knew the group in front well, but part of me is thinking if that hit them full blown from that distance and speed, i could be in major trouble. Is £30.00 a year really worth it......
S
Snelly
Guest
Interesting....but you didn't hit him! Within feet? A miss is as good as a mile! 
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
I agree the risk is miniscule, barely worth considering BUT.
What if it did happen - that 25 million to 1 chance. That's what I'm saying - could you find 400k to compensate someone?
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
Interesting....but you didn't hit him! Within feet? A miss is as good as a mile!
I agree totally, a miss is a miss, but given the size of our golf complex, and the far that i was 100% convinced he was out of range, it just shows how easy it can happy. not only did i mistake the distance i could smash a drive, but thinking he was non reachable i actually carried him.
Yes a miss is a miss, but by 2/3/4 foot is a bit close for comfort. I cant start to think about the damage that a AD333 could have caused at that speed to the back of a 75 year olds head.. it could quite easily be manslaughter
Now based on 400k for an eye, im assuming a brain tumar would be around 600k, death around 1 mill, and with it being solely down to me as the club would have been at no fault, i would / could have gone to prison... all for miss judging distance. I know thats ott... but technically that could be what happens in future cases.
S
Snelly
Guest
Maths is not my strong point but for arguments sake, let's say that 25,000,000-1 means I would have to hit 24,999,999 shots before I hit someone. If my number of shots that could kill per hole is 2 as I am excluding putts and taking an average including par 3's, 4,s and 5's then that equates to 12,499,999 holes or 694,444 rounds of golf.
Assuming each round takes 4 hours, then that is a total of 2,777,777 hours of play required. That equates to 317 years of golf, 24 hours a day.
I think I should be okay. Even if the 25,000,000-1 original odds are out by miles, it shows how low the risk is. There is always a but though.... and numbers like this count for nothing if you hit someone with a ball in the face next Tuesday!
I will take a chance though.....
sev112
Tour Winner
Common statistics dont help in extremely low frequency : high consequence events. And industry and society makes taht mistake time after time.
but i agree with Snelly.
In fact instead of making the masses pay for these low frequency events, why not flip the stuation, and make it a requirement that you have to self-insure - i.e. if you are at common risk on a golf course, then you take out insurance to cover your own loss of earnings and adjustments you have to make in yoru life if you are subject to an accident. Or alternatively you take teh risk yourself
but i agree with Snelly.
In fact instead of making the masses pay for these low frequency events, why not flip the stuation, and make it a requirement that you have to self-insure - i.e. if you are at common risk on a golf course, then you take out insurance to cover your own loss of earnings and adjustments you have to make in yoru life if you are subject to an accident. Or alternatively you take teh risk yourself
Similar threads
