No legal case for being hit by a ball on the course

[shivas irons]

Hmmm indeed, £2 cover you for a £400k bill?...

It did actually..........people will be queuing up to get a wack from one of your shots now they know :rofl:

 

[shivas irons]

Disgusting attitude to the welfare of fellow golfers who play this game for leisure and the pure love of it, and if someone in your position injured a third party and avoided responsibility or even worse to give personal details to avoid it is a serious moral problem on some bodies part.

I'm insured purely incase the event ever arose and someone was injured 'by accident' as a result of my wayward shot...and personally could not be content if someone had been injured and any part of their life affected by my game. For the measly cost of around 33p per game for the assurance that other people will be recompensed should my game affect them is negligible. I dont see how anyone can play without cover, courses should not allow it, and other golfers should take a firmer stance with their playing partners.

I contacted golf care, and got a discount for all our society to join them. For us it works out at 28p a round.

How would people feel if an uninsured golfer shanked a shot and an unlucky strike killed or give a friend/ relative permanent damage. Would they have the same opinion or do you think they might say why wouldnt you pay a pittance to cover this eventuality.

NO GOLFER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PLAY UNINSURED AT ANY COURSE. Disgraceful if someone is not insured

Right thats my 10bobs worth.

What do you think, right or wrong

Spot on :thup:

 

[DappaDonDave]

It did actually..........people will be queuing up to get a wack from one of your shots now they know :rofl:

I can't hit a green from 220 yards so if I can hit a person it's extremely lucky on my part that the shot was so accurate.

I don't know anyone with golf insurance except the blame culture scared members of this forum, if it was deemed necessary golf insurance would be a legal requirement to play, it's not, ergo its pointless.

 

[stevelev]

I can't hit a green from 220 yards so if I can hit a person it's extremely lucky on my part that the shot was so accurate.

I don't know anyone with golf insurance except the blame culture scared members of this forum, if it was deemed necessary golf insurance would be a legal requirement to play, it's not, ergo its pointless.

Would you be happy to get back to the car park to find your back windscreen smashed by a stray ball. You may claim on your insurance. If you saw who hit the stray ball would you like them to pay for the damage or basically give you the middle finger and tell you to park elsewhere its your fault.

DD I feel strongly and hope that you never see a friend hit on the head and convulsing through a shank that a low handicapper hit. The guy in question quit his game through worry for his fellow golfer went to hospital with him to see he was alright and siad he would pay for private health care if needed. Not through insurance the guy was minted. But what if he wasnt, and what if the friend I saw hit did not have a nest egg to dip into while he was recovering. Can you afford legal expenses and to cover damages if your seriously injure someone???

I believe it should be a legal requirement. I think every golfer should have as a minimum 3rd party public liability cover. I personally dont care about material things going amiss every now and then due to carelessness or leaving things on view. But I believe that every golfer should feel a responsibility and duty of care to other human beings and property / animals that they would cover themselves in the event they have 'an accident'.

I very rarely hit green from over 180yds. But quite often have thinned a bunker shot from a greenside trap, luckily never towards property or people. It only takes one 'accident' to ruin someones life or environment.

Right no more from me, I don't want this going to ping-pong. I'm sure there are many happy to play without cover, and many the other way. Just spare a thought and make sure that there is no-one in range in any direction your ball may travel prior to playing a shot. And many years of happy golfing.

 

[mab]

I think if I lost an eye I'd be doing the same, I won't go into the rights and wrongs as I recall it we had a big old thread running on it. However, like everyone has said precedent is there for us all to follow now.

And that is my point. There is no longer the concept of an accident; if something goes wrong, people's immediate reaction is to blame and determine how they can make some cash from it. Breaking your leg in a tackle playing football on a Sunday morning, broken nose when watching the football on a Saturday afternoon... hit in the eye by a golf ball when on a golf course.

Where an individual has been wreckless, that's a different story. However, that's launching a ball at the group in front because they playing slowly and they're annoying you; not slicing your drive onto the next fairway and unfortunately hitting someone having shouted "fore".

Is it really realistic to wait to tee off until there is nobody within a 250 yard (or 350 yard for Golfwrx members) radius of you? That simply isn't possible on a lot of courses.

Are you SERIOUS ? the guy loses an eye while out playing golf like most of us do and he is (as you put it) what is bad with this country ? get a grip.

Very serious - see points above.

I think suing where there is reckless conduct by an individual or reckless disregard of health and safety by a club, is perfectly acceptable. I think both of those things were present in the 400k case. If you've simply been hit by a stray shot then its hard to see how you have a claim since you accept the risk associated with playing in close proximity with other golfers.

Agree with your first point, but was never convinced regarding your second. As mentioned above, is it really realistic to wait to hit your tee shot until there is nobody within 250 yards of you in the 90 degree angle in front of you? On many course, I don't think it is...

And, for what it's worth, I agree with your third point as well. Not sure whether or not that point of view would be upheld in a court of law.

 

[John Boy Saint]

Having experienced a bit of a World where if it was raining bank balances I would catch my own or worse! After inadvertantly smashing my ball at right angles off the toe of my club over a hedge, over a lane, down the drive of a house, with the ball coming to rest safely between 2 very expensive cars, as I had only been playing a few months Golf insurance quickly went on my Golf shopping list.
The outlay in return for piece of mind is mere bobbins in these litigious times we live in.

 

[Colin L]

That £400k case was an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

The claimant is a good representation of what is bad with this country and Lord Brailsford is, quite simply, a huge disappointment for upholding such an unfounded claim.

This sort of thing absolutely infuriates me...

Are you saying then, contrary to Lord Brailsford's judgment that when you are playing golf you do not have a duty of care to other golfers and that a golf club owner, whether a private club or a municipal one, does not have a duty of care to those who play on the course? Here is what he said in determining in that particular case, both defendants (player and club) did have a duty of care:

... first, it must be determined if damage is reasonably foreseeable; second, it must be determined if there is sufficient proximity between the parties and, thirdly, it requires to be determined if it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty.”

As a layman, not a lawyer, that convinces me as a sound and understandable way of working out if duty of care exists. Having established that such a duty existed, the judge continued to determine that in the Niddry Castle case the player and the club had been negligent in fulfilling that duty. In another situation, a judge might well determine that although a duty of care existed, a player had not been negligent which makes me wonder how a solicitor could ever make a bald statement that " the moment you walk out on the course you can't really win a court case if you get hit." Given Lord Brailsford's judgment, the solicitor is demonstrably wrong and I don't imagine there would be that much of a difference between Scots and English law.

If someone carelessly ran into the back of your car, would you be happy with the argument that the other motorist did not have a duty of care to you or that even if he did, you should not pursue him for the damage done to your car because that would make you a representation of what is bad with this country?

 

[bigslice]

Disgusting attitude to the welfare of fellow golfers who play this game for leisure and the pure love of it, and if someone in your position injured a third party and avoided responsibility or even worse to give personal details to avoid it is a serious moral problem on some bodies part.

I'm insured purely incase the event ever arose and someone was injured 'by accident' as a result of my wayward shot...and personally could not be content if someone had been injured and any part of their life affected by my game. For the measly cost of around 33p per game for the assurance that other people will be recompensed should my game affect them is negligible. I dont see how anyone can play without cover, courses should not allow it, and other golfers should take a firmer stance with their playing partners.

I contacted golf care, and got a discount for all our society to join them. For us it works out at 28p a round.

How would people feel if an uninsured golfer shanked a shot and an unlucky strike killed or give a friend/ relative permanent damage. Would they have the same opinion or do you think they might say why wouldnt you pay a pittance to cover this eventuality.

NO GOLFER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PLAY UNINSURED AT ANY COURSE. Disgraceful if someone is not insured

Right thats my 10bobs worth.

What do you think, right or wrong

right if they make it a rule that cyclists have insurance as well

 

[Five&One]

If someone carelessly ran into the back of your car, would you be happy with the argument that the other motorist did not have a duty of care to you or that even if he did, you should not pursue him for the damage done to your car because that would make you a representation of what is bad with this country?

And here is where the whole argument lies. Quite obviously it is okay to claim for actual financial loss, like damage to the car, broken window, burglary etc etc. yet it's clearly not okay to claim for something as unquantifiable in financial terms as six months in a stooky, excruciating pain, or loss of mobility or vision.

Old school says you should man up and stop chasing the cash. New school claims for a sprained ankle due to a slight gap in the pavement. You cant put a value on pain and suffering in the same way you can place a value on a mangled car bumper. No one has yet established a credible form of compensation for injury that doesn't involve cash. Until someone does it will always be dirty in some people eyes to claim for injury and the first thing some other people think of on the way to hospital.

Part of the problem is how much you stand to gain for a basic injury that heals fairly quickly, such as whiplash or dare I say it the fellas broken ankle from last weeks thread. It's thousands upon thousands of pounds. Add in that there is no way you can lose if a claims company takes you on and it's no real surprise that the previously almost completely untapped source that is the claims industry is thriving. Golf is a sitting duck in this regard as people get hit by high speed very hard balls on a daily basis.

 

[bigslice]

And here is where the whole argument lies. Quite obviously it is okay to claim for actual financial loss, like damage to the car, broken window, burglary etc etc. yet it's clearly not okay to claim for something as unquantifiable in financial terms as six months in a stooky, excruciating pain, or loss of mobility or vision. Old school says you should man up and stop chasing the cash. New school claims for a sprained ankle due to a slight gap in the pavement. You cant put a value on pain and suffering in the same way you can place a value on a mangled car bumper. No one has yet established a credible form of compensation for injury that doesn't involve cash. Until someone does it will always be dirty in some people eyes to claim for injury and the first thing some other people think of on the way to hospital.

youre right you cannot put a figure on the pain and suffering caused. and sometimes it has a long term effect. the damage can affect your choice of work your inability to do day to day things like walking or standing up unaided. ive witnessed this and its not nice.

 

[mab]

Are you saying then, contrary to Lord Brailsford's judgment that when you are playing golf you do not have a duty of care to other golfers and that a golf club owner, whether a private club or a municipal one, does not have a duty of care to those who play on the course? Here is what he said in determining in that particular case, both defendants (player and club) did have a duty of care:

... first, it must be determined if damage is reasonably foreseeable; second, it must be determined if there is sufficient proximity between the parties and, thirdly, it requires to be determined if it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty.”

As a layman, not a lawyer, that convinces me as a sound and understandable way of working out if duty of care exists. Having established that such a duty existed, the judge continued to determine that in the Niddry Castle case the player and the club had been negligent in fulfilling that duty. In another situation, a judge might well determine that although a duty of care existed, a player had not been negligent which makes me wonder how a solicitor could ever make a bald statement that " the moment you walk out on the course you can't really win a court case if you get hit." Given Lord Brailsford's judgment, the solicitor is demonstrably wrong and I don't imagine there would be that much of a difference between Scots and English law.

If someone carelessly ran into the back of your car, would you be happy with the argument that the other motorist did not have a duty of care to you or that even if he did, you should not pursue him for the damage done to your car because that would make you a representation of what is bad with this country?

I believe I answered a number of your points in my post just a couple above yours. However, the rationale provided in the £400k case was, in my opinion, insufficient in explaining where that duty of care had lapsed.

One could interpret Lord Brailsford's 3 stage analysis as meaning that damage is reasonably foreseeable when someone is within driving distance and that a safe proximity requires that nobody is within driving distance. It simply is not practical on many golf courses to wait until everyone is out of range within a 90 degree angle from where you're hitting your ball. In fact, on many courses, it's not even possible to know whether or not someone is in range.

I do completely agree with you, however, regarding the inaccuracy of the comments offered by the solicitor quoted at the start of this thread.

I don't particularly like your car analogy so will refrain from answering that point.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

1. You are at The Open this summer stood 280 yards from where Tiger tees off... he shouts "fore" and points in your direction... and the ball hits you squarely in the face. Do you believe you should be compensated?

2. You're playing an Invitation Day this summer at an unfamiliar course... play is slow and you find yourself on a tee with the group in front as they're waiting for the green to clear on this par 3... they tee off and walk towards the green... this tee is near the green of another hole and the group playing that hole waited for the group in front of you to tee off... they decide not to wait for you to tee off as well as they could be there all day... one of those guys hits a massive pull hook, shouts 'fore' and points in your direction... and the ball hits you squarely in the face. Do you believe you should be compensated?

 

[DappaDonDave]

I believe I answered a number of your points in my post just a couple above yours. However, the rationale provided in the £400k case was, in my opinion, insufficient in explaining where that duty of care had lapsed.

One could interpret Lord Brailsford's 3 stage analysis as meaning that damage is reasonably foreseeable when someone is within driving distance and that a safe proximity requires that nobody is within driving distance. It simply is not practical on many golf courses to wait until everyone is out of range within a 90 degree angle from where you're hitting your ball. In fact, on many courses, it's not even possible to know whether or not someone is in range.

I do completely agree with you, however, regarding the inaccuracy of the comments offered by the solicitor quoted at the start of this thread.

I don't particularly like your car analogy so will refrain from answering that point.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

1. You are at The Open this summer stood 280 yards from where Tiger tees off... he shouts "fore" and points in your direction... and the ball hits you squarely in the face. Do you believe you should be compensated?

2. You're playing an Invitation Day this summer at an unfamiliar course... play is slow and you find yourself on a tee with the group in front as they're waiting for the green to clear on this par 3... they tee off and walk towards the green... this tee is near the green of another hole and the group playing that hole waited for the group in front of you to tee off... they decide not to wait for you to tee off as well as they could be there all day... one of those guys hits a massive pull hook, shouts 'fore' and points in your direction... and the ball hits you squarely in the face. Do you believe you should be compensated?

In both cases...no. Duck and cover, if that fails, man up!

 

[viscount17]

The £400K case being decided in a Scottish court does not I think constitute precedence in an English court.
I have golf insurance for the same reasons as most others here but I would also not be too sanguine that having it is all the protection you need.

 

[Five&One]

In both cases...no. Duck and cover, if that fails, man up!

How about if Tiger takes 3 to get out of a bunker and angrily launches his 4th attempt into row D of the grandstand where you are sitting and he hits you square in the face. Are you still ducking,taking cover and manning up ? When does the recklessness become so apparent and obvious that its okay to sue ? Or do you ALWAYS man up no matter what injury befalls you and how it came about ?

i think we all know what the acceptable risks are of playing or watching golf or even just being on a golf course. If someone, and this doesn't just apply on a golf course, behaves recklessly or without reasonable regard for anticipated outcome, and someone is injured as a result of that recklessesness or blatant lack of care, then they richly deserve to be made to financially compensate the injured party, there being no other recognised form of compensation available.

Injury sustained on a golf course from a stray golf ball played in good faith and with proper regard for the safety of others should NEVER result in a successful claim.

 

[Colin L]

I believe I answered a number of your points in my post just a couple above yours. However, the rationale provided in the £400k case was, in my opinion, insufficient in explaining where that duty of care had lapsed.

Too much to think about at this time of night other than this one point. I can't comment on the judgement of a particular case because I don't have full knowledge of the situation and especially because I don't have the legal knowledge, experience and expertise of a judge of the Court of Session. Fair enough if a layman like me says I don't like a judgement, but that's a long way from saying the judgement is flawed.

How about if Tiger takes 3 to get out of a bunker and angrily launches his 4th attempt into row D of the grandstand where you are sitting and he hits you square in the face

Would he not be more likely to launch his sand wedge?

 

[mab]

I believe the majority understand and agree there must be duty of care demonstrated when on a golf course.

Where I believe many disagree is the point at which that duty of care has lapsed... and, for me, the precedent has been set by Lord Brailsford (keeping the Scottish / English law point separate for now) that duty of care is deemed to have lapsed when hitting a golf ball when someone is in range of where your ball could potentially reach. Setting that precedent is what disappoints me as I believe that precedent is wrong.

The blame and claim culture infuriates me. Hit by a stray ball per my question 2 above (e.g. someone hooks or slices onto the next fairway), I don't believe that should be a claim scenario and is an accepted risk of anyone playing golf on a golf course. Being hit on the back of the head because the group behind didn't wait until you were out of range, being hit in the face by Tigers's driver / 2 iron / sand wedge which he's launched in your direction after a bad shot... they would be fair game.

I appreciate insurance (theoretically) addresses the risk, but do forum members... all of whom I assume regularly play the game and have done for some time... really disagree with what I've just written? If so, I'm genuinely surprised...

 

[Sweep]

As a solicitor once said to me, " if we all agreed on the law and interpreted it the same way there would be no need for civil court action...or solicitors". Hence the difference in advice depending on what solicitor you talk to and hence the difference in outcome depending on what judge you get. As stated in some posts here, it's about intent for me. If you had no intent and take any reasonable precaution and an accident happens, you shouldn't be sued within an inch of your life. As the saying goes "accidents happen". Believe me, the compensation culture is driving up prices for everything you do in life and that includes golf.

 

[Slab]

Interesting, I don't currently have insurance for golf or any other pastime, hobby or sport that I might participate in from cycling to kite flying, from jogging to swimming. Indeed anything where I may accidentally cause an injury or damage to a 3rd party or their property

For those who have insurance, is it a policy that covers all sports, hobbies etc or would I need a separate one for each?

If the former what evidence of competency of each hobby needs to be supplied with the application & if the latter is the cumulative cost of all these polices not extremely high?

For the golf insurance aspect I assume that in the policy the insurer will outline exactly what the golfers duty of care is (otherwise how would the golfer know what to do to remain insured) as I guess any action outwith this duty of care would render the policy void and the golfer would be uninsured by his own actions

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Dufferman, If you played a municipal you would probably find that there is some sort of insurance cover with the green fee/season ticket. Most do, and it would be worth checking for the sake of the injured golfer.

 

[dufferman]

I don't think the car driving scenario is a fair comparison. Intent makes a lot of sense - a miss hit shot isn't intended to hurt anyone, whereas driving up behind the group in front because they are slow is almost trying to hurt them.

Interesting about the Tiger scenario - surely, purchasing a ticket for an event where you are effectively standing / sitting in the way of 60 or 70 human beings, who can all make mistakes, firing small hard objects to within 10 foot of you, means that suing him for hitting you isn't viable due to the nature of the event? Would you sue someone if you were standing in the main road on the high street and a bus clipped you? If you put yourself in a position where you increasing the chances of being injured, how can you sue someone when it happens?