RC Spectator blinded

[IanM]

While I dont disagree with you, I suspect the days of "calculated risk" by anyone are long gone!

 

[Tiger man]

Ban crowds then. You can't go watch live golf in a landing area then expect to sue if you are hit when there have been shouts and gesturing. It is your responsibility to take notice when there is a couple of shots every 10 minutes or so.

 

[Lump]

I believe you have a disclaimer as part of the T&C’s when buying tickets. I would think she won’t get a penny from event/Hosts but Brooke’s might Stand up and pay her a non too substantial amount.

I would be amazed if there hasn’t been a case study for financial viability of netting Vs paying out claims for these rare occasions that permanent damage has been done.

 

[USER1999]

Would the venue, or the organisers not have to have 3rd party liability insurance, not just for this, but for any unforeseen accident. Some one could trip on the grand stands for instance.

 

[PJ87]

See now I commend the lady if I’m honest

She would have been in shock.. she sounded like she remained calm. Didn’t blame Koepka (he will have already been feeling awful I’m sure) and isn’t laying blame at his door

Is legal action against the venue for medical bills. Sounds fair to me

 

[rksquire]

Ban crowds then. You can't go watch live golf in a landing area then expect to sue if you are hit when there have been shouts and gesturing. It is your responsibility to take notice when there is a couple of shots every 10 minutes or so.

But if I was being difficult, that's just it - I would just say if I go to watch live golf I would expect the organizers to have a duty of care to ensure I can't stand in the 'landing area' as that is clearly a foreseeable risk. Spectators have a certain responsibility but it's a question of how far that extends - at some point in the near future someone will clearly identify negligence to the organizers as it was reasonable to expect a 170mph ball to land in a certain area yet spectators were allowed to stand there. And not just stand there, but to be 10 deep, where vision of the ball path could be impaired. And we're acknowledging the shout of 'fore' can't be heard 300 yards away. So we can't just say, the spectator must take full responsibility because they decided to stand somewhere that they were allowed (or even encouraged) to stand.

 

[drdel]

There are many ways to look at this horrible accident. Strangely, its probably 'better' that the ball hit an adult, the ramifications and outcry had a child been hit would be huge!

Since, at this level, these players are well aware of how far they hit the ball and the individual's likely degree of accuracy you could say there's a professional obligation to only hit it as far as the risk to others allows. We often see players hit across a dog-leg into an unsighted target area. This would put the onus on the player to only hit the shot that is wise/safe under the circumstances at the time. Clearly organisers that allow spectators to be exposed to undue risk would leave themselves liable.

Current litigation says the days of expecting spectators to 'look after themselves' and fully understand the consequences are long gone.

The only practical solution I see is that players/caddies should be encouraged to take the risk into account - how is another question.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But if I was being difficult, that's just it - I would just say if I go to watch live golf I would expect the organizers to have a duty of care to ensure I can't stand in the 'landing area' as that is clearly a foreseeable risk. Spectators have a certain responsibility but it's a question of how far that extends - at some point in the near future someone will clearly identify negligence to the organizers as it was reasonable to expect a 170mph ball to land in a certain area yet spectators were allowed to stand there. And not just stand there, but to be 10 deep, where vision of the ball path could be impaired. And we're acknowledging the shout of 'fore' can't be heard 300 yards away. So we can't just say, the spectator must take full responsibility because they decided to stand somewhere that they were allowed (or even encouraged) to stand.

Valid point. However, I'll extend it further. You are removing spectators from a wayward tee shot, do we also have to remove them from around the green? What if they overcook the approach shot, tug it etc? The safe zone gets larger and larger. If organisers are having to allow for really wayward shots then viewing is going to get really tough.

 

[Garush34]

Valid point. However, I'll extend it further. You are removing spectators from a wayward tee shot, do we also have to remove them from around the green? What if they overcook the approach shot, tug it etc? The safe zone gets larger and larger. If organisers are having to allow for really wayward shots then viewing is going to get really tough.

Agree with this, if you have to extend the safe zones then it becomes pointless having spectators. Take the Old course for example there is no where to extend the safe zone too as there is no extra room due to the other courses ect.

 

[Tiger man]

But if I was being difficult, that's just it - I would just say if I go to watch live golf I would expect the organizers to have a duty of care to ensure I can't stand in the 'landing area' as that is clearly a foreseeable risk. Spectators have a certain responsibility but it's a question of how far that extends - at some point in the near future someone will clearly identify negligence to the organizers as it was reasonable to expect a 170mph ball to land in a certain area yet spectators were allowed to stand there. And not just stand there, but to be 10 deep, where vision of the ball path could be impaired. And we're acknowledging the shout of 'fore' can't be heard 300 yards away. So we can't just say, the spectator must take full responsibility because they decided to stand somewhere that they were allowed (or even encouraged) to stand.

It's a tough one isn't it, maybe the organisers need to incorporate the cost of insurance for these incidents into the pricing of a ticket. If the price goes up a bit so be it.

 

[IanM]

West Ham are trialling this approach at their new stadium.... fans miles from the action! Nice and safe!

 

[GB72]

If I owned the venue, I would be getting a settlement in place PDQ if all that she is looking for is the cost of medical treatment. That is a very fair and level headed approach to the claim. If they push against that, not only will there be a raft of bad publicity 'evil golf course owners will not help with basic medical costs', you can also bet that there will be an additional claim for the loss of quality of life added on if this goes to court.

A cynical way of looking at things but, at the moment, an immediate agreement to cover medical costs can result in positive press and an avoid an unwanted court case.

It will be interesting to see who is actually liable for marshalling, safety etc. It may be the course or the whole responsibility may be contracted out to the Ryder Cup organisers etc who take responsibility for the course and everything on it for the duration of the event.

 

[GB72]

West Ham are trialling this approach at their new stadium.... fans miles from the action! Nice and safe!

True but there is a higher chance of a ball being hoofed in to Row Z at a West Ham match

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I don't know what all the fuss is about, she got a signed glove out of it

 

[Capella]

It seems to me that the biggest risk for the spectators are tee shots. They tend to be the longest shots and the most wayward. So maybe it would be a possibility to try to warn the spectators away from that part of the ropes where tee shots are likely to land. Maybe color the ropes red in that area or something like that. Because a shout of fore just does not cut it when you can't see the player.

Of course spectators can also be hit arond the greens, but in those cases, they are usually at least in the line of sight of the players and a warning shout can be more effective.

 

[GB72]

Not applicable to this situation as much but is the course set up partly to blame for the perceived increase in spectators getting hit. My lowering the rough and removing much of the penalty of being wayward, players are encouraged to boom the drives rather than play for accuracy. If the rough was sufficiently penal, would you see players winding their swing back to try and hit the fairway more often.

 

[User62651]

Jokes about this poor woman's injury are a bit off. Not looking to blame anyone but people wear PPE for all kinds of things nowadays, perhaps they could/should advise spectators wear simple eye protection? Toughened wrap-style sports sunglasses (clear or tinted) etc like DDuval used to wear could have prevented such a serious injury?

 

[Slab]

Whatever the outcome/solution it can't just be suited to elite events though. Some ET events have very minimal roped fairways/areas & that's without dropping to the lower tours/qualifying events where its probably non existent (although fewer spectators also means less likely to hit one)

 

[patricks148]

I believe you have a disclaimer as part of the T&C’s when buying tickets. I would think she won’t get a penny from event/Hosts but Brooke’s might Stand up and pay her a non too substantial amount.

I would be amazed if there hasn’t been a case study for financial viability of netting Vs paying out claims for these rare occasions that permanent damage has been done.

i would guess you could be right

 

[Grant85]

I'm not sure what will happen in these circumstances. Legally you would think this is a very grey area as it would be potentially very damaging to a lot of sports if this was able to escalate through the courts.

I've seen the video and I'm not certain Koepka did shout fore. But there are others on the tee - I think McIlroy and one other - who clearly shout fore left.

I don't imagine Koepka could be held liable, although I know legally you are responsible for your own ball. It's not like he has intentionally hit his shot at her and she has chosen to stand 300 yards away from the tee, 10yards from the green, in full knowledge that guys are going to hit the ball down to that general area.

I'm also not certain public liability will necessarily cover anything. For a golf tournament, surely an insurance company is not going to take on this kind of risk given that fans are hit multiple times per event and it is almost inevitable that a ball will hit a spectator, even at a limited field event. Possible for serious injury or death it may, so there may be something to come out of it.

I'd imagine the situation will develop that Koepka and organisers will probably pay her a settlement out of court, probably 7 figures. And if she's a decent person, she will leave it at that.