Far Reaching Repercussions ?

[MashieNiblick]

Don't think this has anything to to with "Youman Rights" as that legislation as I understand it only applies to actions by public authorities and doesn't directy apply to common law or civil cases. Don't think it's anything to do with "Elf and Safety" either. This is just a straightforward civil negligence case isn't it? If there are any lawyers on here maybe they could advise (strictly pro bono!)

Been following this thread and it's interesting that on the whole most opionions seem to be on the side of the bloke who was sued rather the bloke who was injured.

We don't know enough about the case from the reports which are inclined to be selective and look to sensationalise the outcome. That's the news media and to be expected.

Thie thing for me is that whilst I agree that I take a risk when I walk onto a golf course as I know that it is a place where people hit golf balls inaccurately there is a limit to what I reasonably expect to happen and if someone hit a ball when it was clearly not safe to do so and as a result I was seriously injured then yes I would consider legal action. I think most of us would.

We have a couple of holes where you walk back from the green to the next tee. We don't hit while people do that as it is dangerous. Supposing someone did and I lost an eye? My fault for being on the course or theirs for hitting a ball when there was a good chance I could be hit? On the other hand if I was on an adjacent fairway and someone hit a huge slice and hit me even though I was 75 yards off their line then fair enough I wouldn't consider that to be negligent.

In between there will be borderline cases. This might have been one and the guy who was hit got the verdict. Who knows why? Better case, better lawyers, personality of judge? We don't know but that's the way the legal system works.

I had insurance for years but I discontinued it as I never used it and the club included insurance in the subs and my Home insurance covered my gear. However I will definately be looking at what my cover is now.

 

[Imurg]

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?

So you're driving down the road and by some one in a million chance, a helicopter with a failed engine falls from the sky right in front of you, The crash means you have to have a leg amputated.

Think you might be looking for compensation there don't you?

OK it's extreme but the principle is the same.
If you hit a golf ball and it hits someone else then you are liable for any damage caused. If you drive down the road and hit someone/another car then you are liable for any damage. If you cause damage by whatever means then you are liable. Whether any action is taken will depend on the severity of the damage.
That's the Society/Culture we live in now - like it or not.
For the sake of a few quid a year - less than most GreenFees - all the possible pain of having to find 300k or more is taken away.
I don't see the issue............
The guy hit the ball - it hit someone else and he lost an eye. Does anyone really think he thought - "Oooh here comes a ball. If it hits me in the eye and I lose it I'm gonna get 400k and live like a King" ....?
Damage was done, recompense served.

End of story.
Get insured and you won't have to find the money yourself.

 

[Yer Maw]

Insurance seems like a worthwhile thing to have but I think your own personal insurance covers you for public liability. Worth checking but to me if you shout 'fore in time then it is up to the other party to take appropriate evasive action. However, if anyone is clearly in the line of fire I tend to make sure they are aware. Usually people look over but this is where the club responsibility comes in with signage where you have to highlight where the danger areas are other than fairways which should be recognnised as fair game for being hit. But if there is danger walking between holes when you are off gaurd, then this case shows some signage is needed.
The other things is that when you hear fore, sticking one hand over the top of your head isn't taking reasonable care to protect yourself and if yout get seriously hurt then your the one to blame. A whole body suit akin to those used in the Hurt Locker should suffice.

 

[JustOne]

So we conclude that when Mr Gordon turned to his mates and said..

"There's that slow f*ck who turned my round into a 5hr nightmare last week.
Watch me hit a warning shot over his head...."

..that he was in the wrong?

 

[Smiffy]

So we conclude that when Mr Gordon turned to his mates and said..

"There's that slow f*ck who turned my round into a 5hr nightmare last week.
Watch me hit a warning shot over his head...."

..that he was in the wrong?

Only in as much as he didn't turn his hands over quite quickly enough and allowed the slice to happen in the first place.

 

[DCB]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH181.html

Interesting reading.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH181.html

Interesting reading.

Very, and after reading it have to admit it sounds like the guy who hit the ball was to blame. The fact no other incidents had been recorded suggests most people aren't stupid enough to hit while there are people on the path.

 

[SocketRocket]

I know my club has a number of notices on tee boxes that warn you not to tee off until a certain green or path is clear. Sounds from the case notes that in this case this was not done.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Yes a very interesting read and shows what factors were taken into account.

Makes me think not only about my own insurance but whether our club needs to put up some notices in a couple of places and certainly will make me think more caferully about whether it is safe to hit.

 

[Smiffy]

When my golf insurance renewal comes through each year I don't hesitate in paying it.
Can't be too careful.

 

[sev112]

I must admit that i had never ever hit a duck hook for many years when i was a slicer.

 

[Jonny]

Interesting in that the judge states that because the guy who lost his eye was an inexperienced golfer that liability is on the side of the bloke who hit him and the club.

That sounds a bit like saying if you're a new driver it doesn't matter if you hit someone up the back on the motorway as you didn't know how to react to bright red lights on the back of the car in front.

 

[Marko77]

Was discussing this at the club this morning and was wondering if the guy who hit the shot would have a counter-case against the club in that the evidence indicates there should be signs advising not to hit when people are walking on said path?

Was more querying why the guy who got hit was looking up though. The shout of "fore" normally has most crouched down with the head tucked in until the moment of danger passes?

 

[Whee]

I really am surprised the court order sides so strongly against the club.

50/50 I could agree with. How hard would it be for the club to put something, a sign or marker, between 6th green and 7th tee stating players should be aware of tee shots from the 18th tee box? AND a marker on the 18th tee box stating players shouldn't tee off until the area in question is clear? That would have saved them the liability.

As for the guy playing the tee shot, it's hard not to feel sorry for him. Fine he's made an error of judgement, but a 278k pound mistake? That's harsh, to say the least.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The guy made a mistake yes but there were people walking alongside the fairway he was playing 150yds away. Regardless of how well he was playing, regardless of where he was aiming, you really have to question his judgement teeing off while they were there. However, hitting the guy in the eye was rather unfortunate.

Having said that, the guy who got hit claimed he didn't know what to do when he heard the shout of fore? Surely that must apportion at least a small part of the blame to him? Ignorance surely cannot be an excuse? It's been said on here a number of times that golfers should have to have a certain understanding of the game before they set foot on a golf course, maybe this is a case in point?

 

[Jonny]

Continental golfers have to obtain a course privilege before they are allowed to play on any course including their own members track. What this does is ensure a certain level of ability certified by returning 3 or so scores of less than 120 or something daft... a test administered by a professional on the etiquette of the game (letting people through, behaviour on the course and the like) and what to do in certain situations.

Perhaps we shouldn't be allowing people who have no bloody clue what they are doing onto golf courses in the first place. If you don't know that a shout of FORE means hide and don't look up until you hear something land then you shouldn't be out there.

Tragic yes... but the guy is an idiot for looking up in the air. What the hell did he think he was going to see?

 

[Imurg]

I've been banging on about this for years.......

It'll never happen though - unfortunately.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Was more querying why the guy who got hit was looking up though. The shout of "fore" normally has most crouched down with the head tucked in until the moment of danger passes?

The evidence of the guy's playing partners was that he did duck. The evidence of the guy who hit him and his partner was that he didn't. The Judge thought that their evidence was unreliable and that in any case it was immaterial, as he had so little time to react anyway. The main thing is the guy shouldn't have been hitting the ball.

Tragic yes... but the guy is an idiot for looking up in the air. What the hell did he think he was going to see?

I don't think the Judge accepted the evidence that the guy looked up and in any case the Judge didn't think that was relevant anyway.

As for the guy playing the tee shot, it's hard not to feel sorry for him. Fine he's made an error of judgement, but a 278k pound mistake? That's harsh, to say the least.

Unlucky rather than harsh. Had it only resulted in a bruised bum it wouldn't have cost that much. The reason it cost £278k was because the other guy lost an eye. The damages reflect the magnitude of the outcome. I imagine there are established tariffs for injuries i.e. loss of an eye = £400K.

I think the account gives a pretty good picture of what happened and I'd agree it was risky not to say dangerous to hit when there is a group of people only 150 yards ahead and only 12 degrees off your line. Would you expect someone to hit a ball while you were in that position?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The first that the pursuer was aware of this occurrence was when he heard a shout of "fore". He heard only one shout of "fore". He heard no other warning shout. At the time he heard this shout he was pulling, holding with his right hand, a golf trolley. He did not know where the shout of "fore" had come from. His immediate reaction was to duck or crouch down and place his left, or free, hand over his head whilst at the same time trying to look upwards. Whilst in this position he was struck in the eye by the golf ball which had been struck by Mr*Gordon

Suggests to me that the guy who was hit admitted he was looking up while covering his face with only one hand and still holding his trolley with the other

 

[sev112]

After reading the judgement, i counted at least 16 locations on our (short, tight) course where this situation is easily foreseeable. Which has me worried

Were we to wait for everyone that is possibly within range of a 30 degree angle from our preferred line of shot, and even more from a big slice or duck hook, then not only would our games takes hours, they woudl actually stop. There are at least 2 locations where you would have to leave a clear Par 3 hole "free" between adajcent groups. This could have serious repurcussions to golf course management. Putting up a sign is not just simple. You would stand on our 2nd tee and read "Do not play until the 3rd tee, 3rd fairway and 3rd green are cleared; also at the same time the 10th tee, 10th fairway and 10th green; if you didnt warm up and are susceptible to a particualrly viscous duck hook, also make sure the 4th Green (and possibly the 4th tee) are cleared; also watch out for the public footpath that runs along all 3 holes; also there is a public road just to the right side of the fence along the 2nd, but you cant see any cars, cyclists, horses or pedestrians walking their dogs because of the hedges. Perhaps you have better go back and have a lie down; or come back on christmas day when there's nobody here "

Which says to me that the original course designer needs to be somewhere in part of this equation.