Far Reaching Repercussions ?

[MashieNiblick]

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

Ah, I was going by this bit:-

"Both defenders state pleas of contributory negligence. In both cases these are based upon the pursuer looking up on hearing the shout of "fore". First, I do not accept that the factual basis for this plea has been established. As already indicated I accept the evidence of the pursuer and his three playing companions that, on hearing the shout of "fore", he ducked or cowered down at least to some extent while simultaneously placing his left hand over his head."

Like sev112 I can see there are a few places on our course where I would now be much more cautious before playing. Maybe that's a good thing. The last thing I want to do when playing golf is cause someone a serious injury.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Trouble is when I'm on the course there is usually only one safe area and that's bang in the midle of a fairway. If you are left or right on any hole then you are prime candidtes with my game. I do think the guy playing made an error of judgement in teeing off and to a degree I can see where the judge is coming from saying a shour of fore didn't give the guy time to react. As to whether he did or didn't duck or shield his face i guess will remain a mystery forever. It has definitely set a dangerus precedent and I wonder just how seriously clubs will look at this and decide to change signage, local rules etc.

 

[sev112]

i just wonder whether we shoudl change the shouting of "Fore" from after , to BEFORE we hit.

i.e. we see someone that is in "range" of a viscious duck hook or push slice, and we shout "FORE" before we hit (and possibly after if the ball is actually going in their direction). That way we give the people in "range" the opportunity to prepare themselves. ?

i can see some benefits in this, but i can also see some rather angry putters, people teeing off behind hedges getting a bit p'd off with all and sundry shouting around the course

 

[Mark_G]

It certainly seems that the Judge did not value the expert evidence presented by the defence, or indeed found the first defender to be a good witness, from what the Judge states it would appear that defender 1 was over confident in his abilities, bordering on arrogance. In this situation it would appear that the Judge had very little option, but to uphold the claim.
Lessons to be learnt from this are:-
Get some form of Insurance Cover for Third Party liabilty
Assess safety of others at every shot
Dont over estimate your own abilities
Treat every person around you as though they were an idiot
If an accident happens and you get taken to court dont try to blame the person you hit.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Strange the judge missed out the bit about looking up, having already stated previously that he indeed was... but then I'm no legal expert

 

[Jonny]

There is a bit of natural selection to this I think... If (and as uncle albert would put it) during the war, people were given a warning of an incoming air-raid but thought it would be nice to go and see the pretty planes and orange glow they were prime candidates for a spot of darwinism... If, on a golf course, you hear a loud shout nearby and have a little look up to see what it's all about whilst your playing partners jump for the nearest bunker you can pretty much say that you're one for the 'extinct' pile generally.

Yes the ball striker did wrong... obviously... but 400K worth of 'wrong' when this guy didn't know what he was doing on the course? I don't think so. If I were him, or his insurance company, I would be seeking an appeal on this decision on the basis that the guy himself failed to carry out a sufficient assessment of the game, it's warnings and the course layout to properly prepare himself for an activity containing equipment which is perfectly capable of causing death and, as can be seen by the pursuer himself (sort of seen after this anyway), serious injury.

He should be liable for some of this on the basis that he had no business on the golf course due to a complete lack of knowledge on his part. Very little sympathy I'm afraid.

 

[lobthewedge]

Very interesting reading, sheds some light on it and the thinking of the judge.

Still reckon its a bit harsh on the unfortunate 'duck hooker'. He maybe shouldnt have hit but I think the fact the victim admitted to being out his depth and clueless on a golf course has far more relevance than the judge seemed to think.

However, reading the detail it would appear the club should have had a sign or two positioned about the course, but like someone already alluded to, where would you draw the line? The Old Course at St Andrews could potentially end up looking like spaghetti junction if they had to warn against every possible stray shot within a 30 degree cone.

One more point - given the judgement, would you (without insurance) accept the invitation of a group 150 yards down the fairway waving you through? How far would they have to step aside or would you only hit if they all walked back to the tee?

 

[rickg]

"He was not versed or familiar with the rules or etiquette of golf or any local rules which may have applied to Niddry Castle Golf Club. He was, in a general sense, having watched golf tournaments on television, aware that the shout "fore" was a warning call shouted by golfers to alert other golfers when a bad or dangerous shot had been struck. He was not however aware of any conventional form of precaution which golfers took or were expected to take on hearing that call."

Give me a break.....how naive is the judge if he actually believed this?

 

[RobbOnTheRock]

And here was me thinking it was basic instinct to crouch down and put your hands on your head.......

 

[StrangelyBrown]

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?!?

This is my take on it.

 

[Oddsocks]

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.

Im 100% behind this reply, i come from a motocross background, where it used to cost £20.00 to practice for a day, and around £30-£35 to race. because of the no win no fee crap its not getting to £30-40 to practice, and £40-£50 to race, all because of an increase in insurance costs.

So mr phee won £400k... great, but we will will pay contribution to that when green fee's rise because insurance premiums have increase.

Mr Phee... thank you very much for making my golf more expensive!

 

[DCB]

Interesting to see the reaction to this and the two views being taken by the majority of forum members.

 

[Oddsocks]

reading back over the thread, and looking at it again... i still take being hit with a ball as a given for the sport im involved with. coming from an extreme sport, there is alot less chance of me getting injured playing this game, this is why the average age of our sport is pretty high, because its low risk.

As i kid i got hit twice in the same round by wayward balls, the first unlucky, the 2nd was due to me being slightly dazed from the first. Did i look to claim... NOPE! this is despite my neurologist suggesting he thinks it could have been this that cause my epilepsy.

Getting hit is a given.. it can happen... but it happens rarely. The problem with the attitude nowadays is someone has to be at fault, nothing can just be an accident, and more importantly someone always has to pay out. Dont get me wrong losing an eye is an extreme, but the problem we are going to have is people scared into taking out a insurance policy, then your going to get lots of fake claims for minor injuries... this will force the insurance fee's up... so people will claim more, no different to all the fake whiplash claims in the motor insurance field, which is why our premiums are so inflated.

 

[Monty_Brown]

I have to say that having read the full judgment, I'm not sure which way my views fall. I would say that both parties did things that were "risky". Having read all the descriptions of angles, likely landing zones etc, it sounds like teeing off was a bit dodgy, but we all have lapses of judgment. Except most of us don't end up with whopping damages awards against us.

 

[Snelly]

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.

I completely agree with you 100%.

This whole thing is ridiculous. I would never take out golf insurance unless it was to cover the round of drinks for a hole in one. I can't see the point. Not only that, I think if you do take out insurance, you are supporting an industry that gains from this kind of situation - not something I would want to do.

 

[Bomber69]

Golf insurance is a must for everyone & there is very little cost in it, I have had insurance for years & have not yet had any call to use it other than settling a bar bill for a hole in one.

Having played Niddry Castle quite a few times this was an accident waiting to happen on this particular hole but I can't understand what all the fuss is about, it was not his fault he was hit so why should he suffer.

Insurance is a big business and yes it may cost us money but at the same time it may help people who have been injured through no fault of their own, is that a bad thing???

Insurance cost for golfers will only be about £30 per year and is a small price to pay in the knowledge that if something happens then you or the other party may be covered plus most companies will give you free rounds of golf via vouchers that will be worth more than the insurance payment if you choose to use the vouchers.

 

[Snelly]

Golf insurance is a must for everyone

Why?

I have never needed it before? What has changed? Apart from it exists as a product - nothing.

It is not a must for everyone, it is a waste of money and a con.

 

[Oddsocks]

plus snelly only misses a fairway when her in doors wont let him play...

flash git!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Why?

I have never needed it before? What has changed? Apart from it exists as a product - nothing.

It is not a must for everyone, it is a waste of money and a con.

Unfortunately Snelly what has changed are the million desperate for work solicitors/lawyers that think everything is someone's fault and will encourage anyone to sue for anything. If you trip over a crack in the pavement and bruise your toe these days you can sue the council.

I don't subscribe to the compensation culture, I think you should accept the risks of whatever you decide to do, but there are a lot of people in this world who don't subscribe to that theory and if judges are going to start dishing out decisions like this one, whether you agree with it or not it could save you a hell of a lot of money.

Of course, you could argue that this was a one in a million accident which may never happen again, let alone to you.

 

[Golfmmad]

r

Why?

I have never needed it before? What has changed? Apart from it exists as a product - nothing.

It is not a must for everyone, it is a waste of money and a con.

I would normally agree with your views on this Snelly, but it has changed now.

This new judgement has set a precedent for all future claims surely.

I've never had golf insurance and only have insurance on necessities, such as car, central heating etc.

But now if I was to unfortunately hit someone on the course and subsequently sued for doing so, there's no way I could come up with such a large compensation claim.

The likelihood of this happening is rare, but can I take the chance?
For me, it's too much of a risk after this recent court ruling.