Far Reaching Repercussions ?

[Fyldewhite]

I am very confused by your comments, to me your last paragraph is exactly what you are saying!!!
The only way you 100% stop this ever happening is to follow your last statement, no golfer ever plays a shot other than where he is aiming.....but unfortunately they do not always end up there, so with your reckoning we would always be guilty?????

I suppose what I mean is that if the players are in range, you can see them, and the possibility is there that you could hit them and do some serious damage then it would be prudent (as it seems in law) to wait a minute for them to be out of danger..... or make sure you are covered insurance wise in case the unlikely actually happens.

 

[lobthewedge]

Cant believe what some of you are actually saying on here. Cant tee off until you have produced the proper insurance documents, is that the direction golf and the modern world is headed? Bollocks to that. Maybe we should all just stay indoors and play golf on the computer, much safer and cheaper that way?

Dont get me wrong I feel sorry for the guy who lost his eye, but it was a one in a million freak ACCIDENT, tough titty, blame god, fate, karma or buddha for your pissy luck. Dont take it out on some poor sod, pumping him for £280K just because he hit a bad drive and life dealt you a crappy hand. Utter madness, not to mention greed!

Why not go the full hog and sue Titleist for not having printed warnings on the ball, must be a case in that surely?

 

[muttleee]

So if someone hit YOU in the eye and cost you the sight in it, you would just put it down to experience and forget it? Pull the other one...

 

[Fyldewhite]

Cant believe what some of you are actually saying on here. Cant tee off until you have produced the proper insurance documents, is that the direction golf and the modern world is headed? Bollocks to that. Maybe we should all just stay indoors and play golf on the computer, much safer and cheaper that way?

Dont get me wrong I feel sorry for the guy who lost his eye, but it was a one in a million freak ACCIDENT, tough titty, blame god, fate, karma or buddha for your pissy luck. Dont take it out on some poor sod, pumping him for £280K just because he hit a bad drive and life dealt you a crappy hand. Utter madness, not to mention greed!

Why not go the full hog and sue Titleist for not having printed warnings on the ball, must be a case in that surely?

To illustrate the point, we all (mostly) drive a car and in the very unlikely event of us causing a serious injury, freak accident or not then we are insured against that. In fact that's why we pay (IMHO) over the odds for car insurance. Yes, society is very claim concious these days and I'm not defending that for one minute, it's just the way it is and unfortunately we have to live in the real world. So, my advice would be as above, either be very careful or stump up the massive thirty odd quid for peace of mind. The choice as ever is yours but don't complain if the "freak accident" happens and you find yourself liable. When I got hit in the face it certainly wasn't my fault and it could reasonably be argued that the guy shouldn't have teed off when he did...period. He wasn't insured and it could easily be said therefore that I wasn't the only lucky one.

 

[lobthewedge]

So if someone hit YOU in the eye and cost you the sight in it, you would just put it down to experience and forget it? Pull the other one...

If it was a freak accident without malice or any irresponsible actions from the offending party? Yes, tough *** for me.

I dont subscribe to this compensation bullshit. Call me old fashioned but I take responsibility for my own actions, including the potentially hazardous situations I may choose to put myself in, that includes walking round a golf course.

 

[bladeplayer]

I suppose what I mean is that if the players are in range, you can see them, and the possibility is there that you could hit them and do some serious damage then it would be prudent (as it seems in law) to wait a minute for them to be out of danger..... or make sure you are covered insurance wise in case the unlikely actually happens.

I agree with the last bit , about the insurance , the 1st bit im struggling with tho , heres why.. if your in a four ball on holes with paralell fairways going in opposite directions ok. the other group are coming up twords you now if i hit this well but off course i could hit them 280-300 yards away so i will wait til when ? til they get closer ? say 150 ? what if i duck hook it 150 .. il wait til 80 yards , well what happens if i duck hook it again ? do i wait for the 4 of them to finish a different hole because there is a possibility i could hit them , if this was a rule we would be looking @6/7 hour rounds.. i think the 70% against the golfer was very harsh as there was no intention..

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I agree that 70% seemed high but I'm still unclear if this was tried under English or Scottish statute. If the latter I wonder if it will still set a benchmark once the inevitable happens in England

 

[DCB]

Homer,

It's Scots Civil Law, Court of Session is the big court for dealing with Civil actions up here.

 

[bladeplayer]

Homer,

It's Scots Civil Law, Court of Session is the big court for dealing with Civil actions up here.

Will still set a benchmark for golf every where tho ..

 

[Fyldewhite]

i could hit them 280-300 yards away

I'd personally take the risk for a tap on the ankle, but insurance covers all eventuallities !!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Thanks DCB. I know your laws and those in England are variable and so I'm still wondering if a negligence case in England would look at liability the same way. I have to say I can see how the poor guy was found guilty and certainly think the club have some case to answer re signage, etc but I'm sure its a case of there for the grace.... for all of us and we must all have our tales of near misses and as we've seen on here already, actual injury sustained.

Where do we go from here? I can't see insurance becoming mandatory to play although personally I love the piece of mind (and the fact my clubs are covered too). As Bladeplayer said, when is safe to play now. I think there is more to come from this decision

 

[bladeplayer]

I'd personally take the risk for a tap on the ankle, but insurance covers all eventuallities !!

Mine would Probably hit you or roll gently against you shoe on the 50th bounce at that range , il just use my own course , if you were to wait any time there was a chance of hitting someone id be gone that long my face would be on a milk carton (and you dont wana see that at brekkie time) ,, but yes its like car insurance , its a waste of dosh till you need it

 

[Billysboots]

I really do think there is more to this than meets the eye (pun intended, I'm afraid - sorry). There will be far more to the ruling and the background to it than the BBC can report, and possibly even understands, so I'm not going to worry myself about it.

But it does highlight the need for insurance. I'm covered - I wonder how many others are. I'm willing to bet the percentage of golfers with insurance in place is very, very small. A club near me charges visitors a small indemnity (really annoying when that even applies if you have your own cover), but I can see why.

 

[Driven2Distraction]

Sorry, I seem to be in the minority here but I fully support this from the evidence I've seen reported.


Not suggesting that we all wait until nobody within 300 yards before taking any shot but an experience like that focuses the mind and we all need to be a little more careful at times, and I am as guilty as anyone else. Insurance is a must.

if you're not suggesting 300 yards - what would be the prescribed "safe" distance?
personally speaking - I can snap hook a driver, or indeed a 5 iron, a wide variety of distances - not necessarily dependent on wind conditions!!!

i understand the point being made - but the thing that really gets me about this case (and perhaps modern society in general) is that the "innocent party" are always looking for other people to blame.....

but

surely as club golfers we are ALL aware that none of us, (really - i know it's hard to imagine), are actually any good at this game - and it's a real possibility that absolutely anyone on the course can hit an absolute stinker of a shot that can go in any number of unexpected directions at any trajectory!

club golf by it's very nature is played by people, of varying skill, who (unintentionally) have the potential to cause real damage to other course inhabitants by attempting launch a small and very hard spherical object from the face of their clubs as far as they are humanly capable with the maximum energy possible!!!
now, given the talent levels that most of us possess, coupled with the fact that more than an average number of us are actually quite pleased if our ball travels in ROUGHLY the intended direction - is it not a logical conclusion that golf is quite a risky activity in which to participate and therefore everyone who commences on the first tee accepts this risk????!!!

i know that it's must be a truly awful thing to lose an eye - i can't even begin to understand how it feels, BUT the ONLY way for that chap to have been 100% sure of avoiding his fate for him to have NOT have played golf in the first place - a decision that was his own to make if he cared to carry out a risk analysis of the potential outcomes of playing (there is ALWAYS the possibility that you might be hit by someone else's ball, even if the odds are small)

As soon as we put our Titleist (other branded balls are available) on the peg, on the first tee surely we are tacitly accepting that we are prepared to accept the risks inherent with sharing a golf course with other golfers?!?

 

[lobthewedge]

Driven2Distraction - you are bang on the money, completely agree.

Although, given the content of this thread do you feel your avatar is entirely appropriate?

 

[Driven2Distraction]

Driven2Distraction - you are bang on the money, completely agree.

Although, given the content of this thread do you feel your avatar is entirely appropriate?

absolutely fella

the pokEE accepted the risks associated with standing that close to the pokER, given his knowledge about the pokER's potential for the lack of control of his pokING finger in the general vicinity of other peoples eyes....
oh - and my avatar was here before the thread ;0)

 

[lobthewedge]

absolutely fella

the pokEE accepted the risks associated with standing that close to the pokER, given his knowledge about the pokER's potential for the lack of control of his pokING finger in the general vicinity of other peoples eyes....
oh - and my avatar was here before the thread ;0)

beautifully put

 

[daymond]

Presumeably those of you who are against golf insurance and are property owners don't bother to take out house insurance, although in truth I doubt it. That insurance has third party liability in the £millons. Which incidentally usually would cover you on a golf course.
We are talking here about very serious injury, even death, not the stupid,trivial claims that we read about in the papers all too often

 

[Driven2Distraction]

Presumeably those of you who are against golf insurance and are property owners don't bother to take out house insurance, although in truth I doubt it. That insurance has third party liability in the £millons. Which incidentally usually would cover you on a golf course.
We are talking here about very serious injury, even death, not the stupid,trivial claims that we read about in the papers all too often

but where does is stop?
personally I am insured for as many things as I can think of (including golf) as I am naturally risk averse...
BUT
what's to stop insurance companies refusing to pay out because golfers, as a rule, don't make every effort to prevent wayward shots
by........... (and I'm sure Bob will chip in) taking regular lessons to rectify faults and hit the ball straighter??!?

Its not a huge stretch of the imagination for them to pass any claim back to you because you neglected your basic duty to exercise a "duty of care" towards the injured party (we all KNOW that going for lessons will help us hit the ball straighter - so why don't we actually HAVE THEM?)

I stopped playing rugby because I was acutely aware of the risks involved and as I became older (and slower!) I was less accepting of these risks, which in turn led to me stopping plying...... I am also aware and indeed I accept that each & every time that I'm on the course, that there is the potential of being hit someone else's errant ball - this is a risk that, even though it could have catastrophic results (as bad as rugby), I have judged this risk so unlikely to happen that I am prepared to play, while being aware of this risk - I am aware that the consequence is not trivial, and could be serious - but I am, as everyone is, in possession of the potential risks & outcomes before I play and yet the fact is that I DO play and surely this implies that I accept these risks

 

[SocketRocket]

If we strip away the monetry aspect of this a moment and consider the more important issue of injury to the person.

There are so many situations when playing golf where a ball may cause an injury to someone. Some of these cases are straight forward, for example where another player is directly infront of you and your ball hits him, in this case you are at blame and should not have struck the ball.

What if you struck a ball with the intention of it going directly down the middle of the fairway but you push or pull it, the ball strikes a tree and rebounds back and hits one of your group beside you. What if you play a ball from a bunker that is caught thin and shoots the green then strikes someone out of view on another tee box. What if you hit a big hook off the tee that passes around some trees and strikes someone on another tee box that is unsighted to you.

In the latter case should you walk 175 yards up the fairway and wait until the other tee box is clear before going back to tee off. With the bunker shot should you take a walk around the green and check there is no one else in the visinity before taking your shot.

Come on!! how many hours should we add to a game to ensure absolutely no harm may occur to someone else should any risk of bad shot be made. Will the court of 'Youman Rights' insist that a full Risk Assesment is carried out before proceeding with a shot and that golfers must wear full face helmets, visors and boxes (Ladies kelvar nipple guards).

If someone strikes a ball directly at another person 'knowing' that there is a fair probability that the shot may strike them then they are IMHO guilty of dangerous play. In other cases I think any culpability should be the responsibility of the club to ensure all measures are taken to minimise the risk of injury (Signage, Netts, Tree boarders etc.