Far Reaching Repercussions ?

[bladeplayer]

"lord Brailsford said a golfer of Mr Gordons experience should have been aware the risk his tee shot posed to Mr Phee"


If Mr Gordon was a beginner or his 1st time out then what ?? discriminated against because he was experienced ? maybe we as golfers are biast but seems a shocking judgement , if you crouched with your hand over your face surely youd get a sore head or hand rather than busted eye ?

 

[Jonny]

The answer to this is of course simple... round up any lawyer who thinks that it's ok to be an ambulance chaser and kill them. And secondly take anyone who sues when they know there is a risk element to what they are doing and stick em in a cell with that Bronson bloke for a few weeks before shipping em off to the US.

The compensation culture that we seem to have inherited from the US would soon slow down then.

 

[lobthewedge]

Just googled it and read a bit more of what happened.

Basically the guy hooked his drive and it smacked our poor wee victim 150yards away as he was walking on a path between the 6th green and 7th tee. An accident that couldve happened to anyone of us.

£400K for hitting a bad drive?

I could go out tonight and get assaulted in the street, run over by a drunk driver or blown up by a terrorist and not get a penny in compensation. Dont you you just love the Great British legal system and the scumbag lawyers who fester in it?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

You've got to feel for the guy that lost the eye but I can't help thinking we aren't being told the exact details. Being hit by a ball is a risk you take when you step onto a golf course and while the guy actually hit the ball, I fail to see how he could be to blame unless he was hitting to a position where he knew there was a chance he might hit someone.

It's impossible to really comment without knowing the exact details but there are worrying implications for the game in general. You either have to put insurance as part of the membership or green fee or make everyone sign a disclaimer before playing. Just thinking about it, you often see signs in club car parks saying cars are parked at owners risk. How long before there are signs on the first tee saying players play at their own risk?

 

[daymond]

I have said it at least twice before on this forum that all members of golf clubs should have third party insurance and show proof of this as a condition of membership. Non members should provide similar proof or the club have insurance for visitors and charge a fee on top of and separate from the green fee. ( only one club has had this that I have played at)
It must be for every player to have the safety of others as a priority, after all we play golf for fun and do not want to find ourselves in a crown court somewhere.
This will be a salutary tale to those 260yd hitters spraying the ball 20 degrees and more left and right.

 

[Airlie_Andy]

Does this ruling mean that you can now sue anyone participating in a sporting event if you are injured as a result of their actions? What if someone punched you on a night out? Can you sue them for 400k? I refuse to believe that this is as simple a case as is being made out, their must have been an element of recklessness by the person hitting the shot? If their is a walkway between holes that goes back towards the tee box and is close to the edge of the fairway then the club should definitely have signage to state who has right of way. Either those walking on the track should give way to players on the tee or the players on the tee should give way to those walking on the track. Either way if I was walking back towards a tee box and I could see someone about to tee off I'd keep a very close eye on where the ball was going and would probably stop walking while they were about to hit.

 

[DCB]

Before everyone gets too jumpy, the course is a very compact, tight layout. There are several crossover areas on the layout where extra vigilance is necessary. It's not uncommon for that type of layout on older style short courses up here. That being said, I'd certainly have been keeping an eye on the 18th tee before going back to the 7th tee from the 6th green. With the 18th tee being slightly elevated, it would be all too easy to turn one over putting those in reach down the left in harms way.

I played there for a season way back in the early 80s and even at that time as a nine hole layout, there were blind shots and crossovers. It was the classic 'if in doubt, shout!' type of course.

It's the precedent that this ruling has now set that makes like difficult for all golfers.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Before everyone gets too jumpy, the course is a very compact, tight layout. There are several crossover areas on the layout where extra vigilance is necessary. It's not uncommon for that type of layout on older style short courses up here. That being said, I'd certainly have been keeping an eye on the 18th tee before going back to the 7th tee from the 6th green. With the 18th tee being slightly elevated, it would be all too easy to turn one over putting those in reach down the left in harms way.

I played there for a season way back in the early 80s and even at that time as a nine hole layout, there were blind shots and crossovers. It was the classic 'if in doubt, shout!' type of course.

It's the precedent that this ruling has now set that makes like difficult for all golfers.

That being the case, it sounds like the guy who got hit's playing partners were a little at fault as well. They should have known it was a risk area and been watching the 18th tee, surely they must be partly to blame as well?

 

[Tiger]

To add to DCBs comments it is important to consider the difference between case law and legislation. There has been no Act of Parliament the 2011 Protection Against Shite Golfers Act stating that if you get clocked on the course feel free to sue all and sundry for every last penny. As case law it does mean that if a similar case is presented in the future that a precedent has been set.

You need to bear in mind the split. 30% to the club suggests that the course layout itself presented an unacceptable level of risk to the individual. DCBs comments corroborate this. Secondly, I'd ask if the party involved were visible before the player in questioned teed off. If they were then the legal test would be if the offending party based on their experience of playing the game considered that they would pose a threat. Clearly the judge in this case felt they should have waited before teeing off. Finally you mustn't discount the scale of the injury. A lost eye is pretty significant.

If my assumptions are correct I think that the ruling is fair and it is our duty as golfers to make sure we are insured so that if we are unfortunate enough to partially blind someone that our insurance company pays that individual suitable compensation. Those of you crying blue murder about the decision: stop whinging, close this browser, open a new window and buy some f***ing insurance! Sorry for the expletive but it is often just £20 a year!

 

[Tiger]

That being the case, it sounds like the guy who got hit's playing partners were a little at fault as well. They should have known it was a risk area and been watching the 18th tee, surely they must be partly to blame as well?

I'm sorry Hawkeye normally I agree with most things you post but that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. How can you apportion partial responsibility to innocent bystanders? Irrespective of their familiarity with the course there is no way they can be held liable for the actions of two external parties or the management of the course. You'll be suggesting they should have offered their mate a protective helmet next!!!

Picture this. You, Fragger and Homer are going for a walk in Berkshire. You are crossing the road at a zebra crossing and one of Imurg's less skilled pupils runs Homer over. Is imurg partly liable? Yes. The pupil? Obviously. But hang on let's apportion 20% responsibility to Hawkeye and Fragger because they should know Imurgs a dodgy driving instructor! WTF!!!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I'm sorry Hawkeye normally I agree with most things you post but that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. How can you apportion partial responsibility to innocent bystanders? Irrespective of their familiarity with the course there is no way they can be held liable for the actions of two external parties or the management of the course. You'll be suggesting they should have offered their mate a protective helmet next!!!

Picture this. You, Fragger and Homer are going for a walk in Berkshire. You are crossing the road at a zebra crossing and one of Imurg's less skilled pupils runs Homer over. Is imurg partly liable? Yes. The pupil? Obviously. But hang on let's apportion 20% responsibility to Hawkeye and Fragger because they should know Imurgs a dodgy driving instructor! WTF!!!

But if you read the BBC article the guy made a point of saying he'd never played there before and had no idea of the routing of the 18th hole. Which is almost like saying if he'd known he might have paid more attention. If the guy who hit the ball was experienced enough to know he might hit them, then shouldn't the guys he was with who had played there before been experienced enough to know the potential danger? I know if I'm playing somewhere that has potential clash points like that, I always make a point of looking out for stray balls.

 

[USER1999]

How much would he have got if it had hit him in the knackers?

 

[Dodger]

I am just back in from attending a week long course and at it one of the head men from the SGU wrapped up and covered this news.

Very worrying for clubs and clubs more than ever need to ensure that their H&S measures are complying.

 

[Jonny]

How much would he have got if it had hit him in the knackers?

Not much. Most I've seen a vacestomy priced at is a grand.

 

[Imurg]

Imurgs a dodgy driving instructor! WTF!!!

Now where's my Solicitor's phone number.........

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I have golf insurance and have had for years. Reading this it does give me a certain degree of peace of mind but I can see that this is now the tip of a potentially Titanic sinking iceberg. We have a sign on our comp tee on the 18th saying do not tee off until the tee on the 7th (whites, yellows and reds) is clear. Basically those playing the 7th have their back to the 18th and so if you do tee off and snap hook it (a shot I've perfected) by the time you hear the shout you'd never see it coming. Now allegedly the guy in the article put his hand to his face (didn't do a very good job mind) but golfers on the 7th would be hit potentially on the back of the head. I think we can all guess the potential outcome there.

I'm guessing the club will argue that the signage is clear to see and so anyone playing and injuring another player is therefore negligent and clearly disobeying clear guidance although I wonder just how that would stand up in court. It seemed the judge wanted to somehow wallop the club to a degree whatever it did or didn't do (I presume the judge doesn't play then). I guess in similar circumstances our club would also take a hit too.

Can anyone confirm if this is all based on English statute or heard under Scottish legislation. Not trying to start a debate on that subject but just wondering what the basis in law was

 

[Fyldewhite]

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

The case is about negligence. Consider the following:
Player is on the tee when players can be clearly seen on adjascent hole at distance of 150 yards but some 70 yards left of intended line. Strong headwind but player tees off, snap hooks the ball and shouts just before the ball smacks one of the players coming the other way straight in the face. Is he negligent?

For me the answer is yes, all day long. The possibility of hitting a wild hook into the wind is real (we all try not to but....). The law seems to be saying that you shouldn't hit if there is any reasonable chance that you may hit someone. In the scenario described above then clearly this was a real possibility. Shouting "Fore" is an irrelevance, the question is always "should you have hit the shot in the first place".

The above happened to me about 8 weeks ago (me being the recipient of the ball in face) and I was VERY lucky. I came away with nothing more than a nasty bruise on my top lip (with titliest printed backwards on the inside!).

I posted on this when the original thread was put up and I said then that golfers wouldn;t dream of teeing off when there is a player 200 yards straight ahead but most won't hesitate to tee off with someone 150 yards on snap hook distance. Bottom line is it's just as negligent either way.

I'm still glad the ball didn't take out my eye despite this ruling, £400,000 sounds fine but I'd rather have my 3D sight thanks. Possibly an inch and a half from being in the same boat.

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.

 

[Dodger]

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

The case is about negligence. Consider the following:
Player is on the tee when players can be clearly seen on adjascent hole at distance of 150 yards but some 70 yards left of intended line. Strong headwind but player tees off, snap hooks the ball and shouts just before the ball smacks one of the players coming the other way straight in the face. Is he negligent?

For me the answer is yes, all day long. The possibility of hitting a wild hook into the wind is real (we all try not to but....). The law seems to be saying that you shouldn't hit if there is any reasonable chance that you may hit someone. In the scenario described above then clearly this was a real possibility. Shouting "Fore" is an irrelevance, the question is always "should you have hit the shot in the first place".

The above happened to me about 8 weeks ago (me being the recipient of the ball in face) and I was VERY lucky. I came away with nothing more than a nasty bruise on my top lip (with titliest printed backwards on the inside!).

I posted on this when the original thread was put up and I said then that golfers wouldn;t dream of teeing off when there is a player 200 yards straight ahead but most won't hesitate to tee off with someone 150 yards on snap hook distance. Bottom line is it's just as negligent either way.

I'm still glad the ball didn't take out my eye despite this ruling, £400,000 sounds fine but I'd rather have my 3D sight thanks. Possibly an inch and a half from being in the same boat.

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.

What he said....

 

[Mick47]

I've always thought that shouting fore is pretty pointless (although I always do) a milisecond after hearing the shout the ball hits, you might get a hand up to your face or manage to turn your head but if its got your name on it ! When I hear the shout I'm often unaware of who the shout is aimed at, for example, at my course the 6th, 8th and 10th greens and the 7th tee are all within a radius of approx 50yds, Ok they arn't all in view but If I'm in that area and the shout comes which way do I turn? I too feel for the guy who lost an eye i equally feel for the ball striker, as previously said, he shouted fore what more could he do. I wonder what most of us would do If we were the golfer who lost an eye, shrug it off as part of the game! Somehow I don't think so. Only answer is get insured the consequences of not doing so are too serious.

 

[johnboywalton]

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

The case is about negligence. Consider the following:
Player is on the tee when players can be clearly seen on adjascent hole at distance of 150 yards but some 70 yards left of intended line. Strong headwind but player tees off, snap hooks the ball and shouts just before the ball smacks one of the players coming the other way straight in the face. Is he negligent?

For me the answer is yes, all day long. The possibility of hitting a wild hook into the wind is real (we all try not to but....). The law seems to be saying that you shouldn't hit if there is any reasonable chance that you may hit someone. In the scenario described above then clearly this was a real possibility. Shouting "Fore" is an irrelevance, the question is always "should you have hit the shot in the first place".

The above happened to me about 8 weeks ago (me being the recipient of the ball in face) and I was VERY lucky. I came away with nothing more than a nasty bruise on my top lip (with titliest printed backwards on the inside!).

I posted on this when the original thread was put up and I said then that golfers wouldn;t dream of teeing off when there is a player 200 yards straight ahead but most won't hesitate to tee off with someone 150 yards on snap hook distance. Bottom line is it's just as negligent either way.

I'm still glad the ball didn't take out my eye despite this ruling, £400,000 sounds fine but I'd rather have my 3D sight thanks. Possibly an inch and a half from being in the same boat.

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.

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?????