Injury on an icy course

[Colin2324]

The Golf Course have public liability insurance and this will cover their legal fees, subject to them having to pay the policy excess which could be upto £5k, Their insurance premiums will increase whislt the claim is pending and they may have new clauses and conditions inserted before next years renewal.

The Golf course will be able to recover their legal costs when they win from either the OP or his own legal expense insurance policy, there are however, several insurance companies who are currently refusing to pay out on lost claims and/or in financial problems and may not be around when this claim comes to court

Not sure if you are plucking figures out of the air there but accept a £5k excess and they are asking for trouble and would be as well not being insured. I suspect its closer to £500 excess on a £1000 premium and a hefty increase in the premium or refusal to renew if they lose, but now I am also guessing. Someone may know the ballpark. I certainly don't but £5k makes no sense and I would actually be horrified if that was their level of exposure in the case.

However, one of the points I was eager to make was that the club took the case down this route, whether by accident or design or by external instructions and they could STILL stop it if they did now what they should have done back then and showed some damn common courtesy and concern.


if I was a club secretary looking at a £5k loss on a 50/50 claim I'd have chucked a free membership (gratuity without prejudice) at it and see if that didnt fix it. It certainly would have fixed it but it doesn't look likely now. £5k wil ruin them and I don't believe for a minute they will have left themselves open to one claim shutting them down. They wont talk to me. I really wish they would.

 

[sajkox]

Let's try, shall I ? (please bare in mind Im not eng native and its not supposed to be serious )

"Dir Sir/Madam and Mister overpaid lawyer (ha!).

I have no intention in pursuing legal action against yourselves in regard to myself breaking ankle on slippery surface while playing golf on your course (Until you make me :>)
I would like to note though that this unfortunate incident could have been avoided if (...blah blah blah it is your fault in a bit...)
I understand you felt obligated to contact your lawyers in fear of me making a claim, but most likely it already cost you more that I would have found sufficient compensation (for, lets face it, my own mistake).

Please bear in mind I do not want fellow golfers to get into my situation, weather/course conditions staying as is. Therefore I would kindly ask for you to consider (...blah blah blah some changes to avoid that...).

If appropriate actions to avoid that were taken I will sleep better at night (and will sing no further actions agreement or sth).
I will leave matter of compensation to you and have no expectations (however wouldn't mind 10 years free membership, with free meal and foot massage after round).

Hope to hear from you soon,
Golfer

PS.
if I hear from your lawyer again I will kill neighbour's dog and will sue you just for the sake of it
PS2.
would prefer to avoid it though as really enjoy playing your course"

voila. ur welcome
btw let us know how things develop

 

[Colin2324]

Let's try, shall I ? (please bare in mind Im not eng native and its not supposed to be serious )

"Dir Sir/Madam and Mister overpaid lawyer (ha!).

I have no intention in pursuing legal action against yourselves in regard to myself breaking ankle on slippery surface while playing golf on your course (Until you make me :>)
I would like to note though that this unfortunate incident could have been avoided if (...blah blah blah it is your fault in a bit...)
I understand you felt obligated to contact your lawyers in fear of me making a claim, but most likely it already cost you more that I would have found sufficient compensation (for, lets face it, my own mistake).

Please bear in mind I do not want fellow golfers to get into my situation, weather/course conditions staying as is. Therefore I would kindly ask for you to consider (...blah blah blah some changes to avoid that...).

If appropriate actions to avoid that were taken I will sleep better at night (and will sing no further actions agreement or sth).
I will leave matter of compensation to you and have no expectations (however wouldn't mind 10 years free membership, with free meal and foot massage after round).

Hope to hear from you soon,
Golfer

PS.
if I hear from your lawyer again I will kill neighbour's dog and will sue you just for the sake of it
PS2.
would prefer to avoid it though as really enjoy playing your course"

voila. ur welcome
btw let us know how things develop

tried it. Not those exact words obviously and not asking for anything in particular. Didnt mention the bit about killing the dog either. Insurance company told me not to contact their client again or they would report me to everyone from the R&A to the police.

 

[sajkox]

tried it. Not those exact words obviously and not asking for anything in particular. Didnt mention the bit about killing the dog either. Insurance company told me not to contact their client again or they would report me to everyone from the R&A to the police.

lol its so awkward
So either you let insurance company know you willingly drop the case so that (hopefully) they allow you to play again.
Or you have no option and continue :|
Its not you home course is it ? - nevermind read first post again

 

[backwoodsman]

Have read through the entire thread and although I'm not a lawyer, I'd say it's not as straightforward as most seem to think.
Both the Occupiers Liability Act and the Health & Safety at Work Act place a degree of responsibility upon the owner/manager of premises for the safety of persons visiting those premises. This applies regardless of whether the visitor pays to enter (eg a green fee) or not. Or even whether the visitor is invited on to the premises or not.

But the crux of the matter is a word I don't think I've seen in the entire thread - which is "reasonable". Under both Acts there is a requirement to take "reasonable" action to prevent harm to persons using the premises. But also, they don't need to do more than is "reasonable". And add on to that, there is also a general presumption on an individual to take reasonable action to prevent harm to themselves. The hard bit is to determine what constitutes "reasonable" - which is why the lawyers exist and why no-win-no-fee companies keep "trying their liuck".

In this case, does that fact its generally frosty make the course unreasonably dangerous? Probably not. Is is it reasonable to assume that in frosty weather there could be local icy patches. Probably. Is it reasonable to expect the club to inspect all the course to check? Probably not. Is it reasonable to close the course because there might be icy patches somewhere. Probably not. Is it reasonable to expect the club to sign every icy patch. Probably not. Overall, had the club acted reasonably? My view probably, therefore, does the OP have a valid claim for compensation- I doubt it.

But on the other hand, if there was a history of people regularly going a over t at a particular spot, it would put a whole different complexion on things and would change the meaning of what was reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[Colin2324]

Have read through the entire thread and although I'm not a lawyer, I'd say it's not as straightforward as most seem to think.
Both the Occupiers Liability Act and the Health & Safety at Work Act place a degree of responsibility upon the owner/manager of premises for the safety of persons visiting those premises. This applies regardless of whether the visitor pays to enter (eg a green fee) or not. Or even whether the visitor is invited on to the premises or not.

But the crux of the matter is a word I don't think I've seen in the entire thread - which is "reasonable". Under both Acts there is a requirement to take "reasonable" action to prevent harm to persons using the premises. But also, they don't need to do more than is "reasonable". And add on to that, there is also a general presumption on an individual to take reasonable action to prevent harm to themselves. The hard bit is to determine what constitutes "reasonable" - which is why the lawyers exist and why no-win-no-fee companies keep "trying their liuck".

In this case, does that fact its generally frosty make the course unreasonably dangerous? Probably not. Is is it reasonable to assume that in frosty weather there could be local icy patches. Probably. Is it reasonable to expect the club to inspect all the course to check? Probably not. Is it reasonable to close the course because there might be icy patches somewhere. Probably not. Is it reasonable to expect the club to sign every icy patch. Probably not. Overall, had the club acted reasonably? My view probably, therefore, does the OP have a valid claim for compensation- I doubt it.

But on the other hand, if there was a history of people regularly going a over t at a particular spot, it would put a whole different complexion on things and would change the meaning of what was reasonable in the circumstances.

Excellent summary without the vitriol.

just a couple,of points that might not be clear. The terrain changed from Frosty to ICY at the tenth hole for an area which was not a patch but which covered two or three of the most exposed holes at the upper level. The ice wasn't apparent to the naked eye and only made itself known when i stepped on to that part of the course and immediately fell.

The crux of the case is whether it was reasonable to expect an inspection of the course to detect the more dangerous terrain on those upper holes and take some action, or whether it was sufficient defence for the club that it was cold and frosty so we, the players, assumed the risk.There are other factors I can't go into but that's the basic choice.

The club have a winter checklist which specifies very particularly, the action to be taken for ice on the course, be that patchy ice or the whole course covered in ice. They didn't carry out the procedures in their own checklist and that, aligned with the fact that they made key changes to procedure after my accident (all members and guests now have to sign a disclaimer which will exclude any further claims)has given confidence to my representative that the case will be won.

They tend not to take on 50/50 cases and whilst they haven't presented it to an QC as yet, they have incurred some expense taking the case on and in their words, they don't normally do that AND lose.

 

[sydney greenstreet]

Flippin grow a set man!

I do not need to grow a set as you put it, I take it you didnt see the post then ?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Have we actually had an answer as to what type of spikes were being used in these frosty conditions, or should we just assume it was softspikes or a spikeless shoe, and as such, utterly inappropriate for the conditions?

 

[chrisd]

l. The ice wasn't apparent to the naked eye and only made itself known when i stepped on to that part of the course and immediately fell.




.

But you expect someone from the golf club to be able to spot it with the naked eye, decide how dangerous it was and take action to stop an accident?

 

[thecraw]

Dont want to put words into anyones mouth ... so ... when I go to play and there is snow - I expect snow not hidden frozen lake that can break my neck. If there was standing water that got frozen and covered in snow I would expect it to be marked / signed or hole / club closed. YES.
The only risk I'm taking knowingly every single time on golf course is of being killed by a..holes that don't shout fore. I am aware of that risk. Yet if I was hit I would sue. Different matter though.

What a sad pathetic statement.

I've been hit numerous times, hit on the back of the neck which floored me. Hit on the back and hit on my spare tyre. All of which were bloody sore but I've never once thought I'll sue you and get some money. Absolutely pathetic mate. Honestly man. I really am saddened to read some of these views and attitudes.

 

[chrisd]

I've been hit numerous times, hit on the back of the neck which floored me. Hit on the back and hit on my spare tyre.

Ever thought that someone didn't like you?

 

[thecraw]

Not sure if you are plucking figures out of the air there but accept a £5k excess and they are asking for trouble and would be as well not being insured. I suspect its closer to £500 excess on a £1000 premium and a hefty increase in the premium or refusal to renew if they lose, but now I am also guessing. Someone may know the ballpark. I certainly don't but £5k makes no sense and I would actually be horrified if that was their level of exposure in the case.

However, one of the points I was eager to make was that the club took the case down this route, whether by accident or design or by external instructions and they could STILL stop it if they did now what they should have done back then and showed some damn common courtesy and concern.


if I was a club secretary looking at a £5k loss on a 50/50 claim I'd have chucked a free membership (gratuity without prejudice) at it and see if that didnt fix it. It certainly would have fixed it but it doesn't look likely now. £5k wil ruin them and I don't believe for a minute they will have left themselves open to one claim shutting them down. They wont talk to me. I really wish they would.

I think we can now see your true colours shining through!

 

[richy]

Not sure if you are plucking figures out of the air there but accept a £5k excess and they are asking for trouble and would be as well not being insured. I suspect its closer to £500 excess on a £1000 premium and a hefty increase in the premium or refusal to renew if they lose, but now I am also guessing. Someone may know the ballpark. I certainly don't but £5k makes no sense and I would actually be horrified if that was their level of exposure in the case.

However, one of the points I was eager to make was that the club took the case down this route, whether by accident or design or by external instructions and they could STILL stop it if they did now what they should have done back then and showed some damn common courtesy and concern.


if I was a club secretary looking at a £5k loss on a 50/50 claim I'd have chucked a free membership (gratuity without prejudice) at it and see if that didnt fix it. It certainly would have fixed it but it doesn't look likely now. £5k wil ruin them and I don't believe for a minute they will have left themselves open to one claim shutting them down. They wont talk to me. I really wish they would.

They probably want you as far away from their course as humanly possible, I know I would.

 

[DCB]

if I was a club secretary looking at a £5k loss on a 50/50 claim I'd have chucked a free membership (gratuity without prejudice) at it and see if that didnt fix it. It certainly would have fixed it but it doesn't look likely now. £5k wil ruin them and I don't believe for a minute they will have left themselves open to one claim shutting them down. They wont talk to me. I really wish they would.

A £5K excess isn't that high bearing in mind that this is a commercial policy we are talking about and not a domestic policy.

As for the Club not talking to you, they can't talk to you. They will be under instruction from their insurer not to talk directly to the claimant. It's the very same reason the Club couldn't talk to you at the start. As for chucking in a free membership to make it go away, that would be an admission of liability on their part, that's never going to happen.

If you did write to them and suggest some form of agreement by way of 'compensation' then you've probably played straight into their hands. Any approach like that should have been made via your representative and not directly from yourself however it was worded or implied.

 

[Kellfire]

But on this issue he probably echoes the sentiments of the majority!

If the majority want the OP to fall and break his other ankle then the majority of this forum are scumbags.

But you expect someone from the golf club to be able to spot it with the naked eye, decide how dangerous it was and take action to stop an accident?

Yes, definitely, the greens keepers should have the means to determine the condition of the course and implement their own safety strategies which the OP has stated weren't followed.

 

[pokerjoke]

What a sad pathetic statement.

I've been hit numerous times, hit on the back of the neck which floored me. Hit on the back and hit on my spare tyre. All of which were bloody sore but I've never once thought I'll sue you and get some money. Absolutely pathetic mate. Honestly man. I really am saddened to read some of these views and attitudes.

In my view it will all depend on the severity of the injury.
In the event recently where the guy got a £400,000 payment for losing an eye.
So are you saying Craw if you lost an eye you would just except?
If i got hit and lost an eye,i would definatly be looking for compensation.
However being hit on the spare tyre and suffering no injury is totally different.

 

[The Sclaffer]

In my view it will all depend on the severity of the injury.
In the event recently where the guy got a £400,000 payment for losing an eye.
So are you saying Craw if you lost an eye you would just except?
If i got hit and lost an eye,i would definatly be looking for compensation.
However being hit on the spare tyre and suffering no injury is totally different.

Surely that would depend on the circumstances? Or do you see it as a "right"?

 

[pokerjoke]

Surely that would depend on the circumstances? Or do you see it as a "right"?

In the case of losing an eye,wether it depended on the circumstances or not,i would try and claim something.
Purely because there must be something in place that protects us on the course.
Its surely up to lawyers to decide if i had a case,and a legitimate claim.
Of course it would be pathetic to claim for just being hit,and no serious injury[in Craws case].
But every case has to be taken on merit.
As has been said,golf clubs have insurance to protect themselves against such circumstances.
If they havnt,then they should be asking themselves why not.

 

[Slab]

I was trying to think of similar circumstances but also removing my bias that may be present simply because it’s a golf course (and this is a forum full of golfers who have emotional & financial ties with their chosen club)

Could only think of paying to enter a zoo or amusement park in terms of the physical scale and topography (although their manpower far exceeds any golf course but I think that would only affect what kind of assessment is carried out prior to accepting visitors/guests and wouldn’t really determine whether or not to carry out an assessment at all)

So really trying to answer objectively what might I do?

Well if I paid and entered an amusement park and slipped on ice on an unmarked maintained grassed area and broke an ankle and found out later that the assessment procedure to be completed before admitting paying customers hadn’t been followed that day, would I consider a claim? 10 times from 10 Yes I would!
(which was different to my answer if it was for the course I play at)

So the question became one of, because its golf and I love golf, how responsible do I feel about the subsequent knock on effect to the club, the game and other members etc, if I should win £20k in an injury claim? (and is it right that I carry that responsibility) Obviously if there’s absolutely no effect to anyone else on a claim being made then no one would here would have an issue with the Op proceeding

From the outside the OP has plenty of opinion to do nothing, accept his part in the accident and ignore any other factors, some opinions seem to be because he doesn’t deserve it and others because of what it might mean to themselves (golfers) and the game of golf in the future (and to be honest if I wanted the OP to reconsider because of what it might mean to me & my golf then some of the derisory comments aren’t likely to help)

Bottom line for me is that because its golf it would make the decision to claim 10 times harder than if it was the local roller-coaster park and a lack of consideration from other parties (course, insures, legal folk etc) would only push me down the claims route

 

[MadAdey]

I have to say something because I believe some people are getting a bit out of line, whether in jest or not. Wishing the OP to fall and break his other ankle is out of line. But hoping he does not get a penny from this accident is OK, as I am in the 'it was his own choice to out there' group.

Like has already been pointed out the GC will have an excess to pay on the insurance and it has already been said that it is not like our household insurance with a £100 excess on it with it being a commercial policy. People saying £5K for it does not sound that outrageous to me. After all thsi insurance is more to cover them against large payouts.