Serious breach of Etiquette

PIng

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
488
Location
Birmingham
The report says he missed the cut, so DQ not an option. It was a freak accident, and he seems genuinely remorseful, so as long as he has no previous form then a fine would seem appropriate. Maybe a 2 shot penalty at the next event he competes in, if the authorities have the power to do that.
 

drdel

Tour Rookie
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
4,323
Freak accident. I doubt any punishment will mean as much as Stadler's punishing himself.

As a one-off accident I'm not sure it is as bad as golfer's who regularly hitting their balls towards spectators and not bother to shout any warning.
 

atticusfinch

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
693
Some kind of action should be taken but not under the ROG. They are intended to ensure fair play in the game, not punish bad behavior, especially if it does not affect the tournament.
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
4,536
Location
Edinburgh
Some kind of action should be taken but not under the ROG. They are intended to ensure fair play in the game, not punish bad behavior, especially if it does not affect the tournament.
I'd agree. Best dealt with as a matter of professional misconduct by whatever sanctions are available to his professional association - fine, suspension from next tournament.... Pretty well the line you would take at a lower level within a club for misconduct by member during a competition such as excessive swearing, club throwing.
 
Thread starter #7

rulie

Head Pro
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
1,249
I'd agree. Best dealt with as a matter of professional misconduct by whatever sanctions are available to his professional association - fine, suspension from next tournament.... Pretty well the line you would take at a lower level within a club for misconduct by member during a competition such as excessive swearing, club throwing.
At our national amateur events, such behaviour as throwing clubs, abuse of equipment, loud and abusive foul language normally results in a quiet warning, noting that subsequent, similar behaviour will result in us revoking his entry (as noted in our code of conduct for competitors). Imo, self-control is important to the game and to others, and someone has to be defining and administering what is acceptable and what is not, and doing it more than less.
 

Bunkermagnet

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
6,158
Location
Kent
So why shouldnt the injured spectator sue him for damages and compo?
It's bad enough balls hitting spectators when they dont shout, but this is much worse.

If legal action was taken, it might persuade the players that spectator welfare IS their concern.
 

mikejohnchapman

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
1,689
Location
Dorset
So why shouldnt the injured spectator sue him for damages and compo?
It's bad enough balls hitting spectators when they dont shout, but this is much worse.

If legal action was taken, it might persuade the players that spectator welfare IS their concern.
I think a fine by the Tour is appropriate but the authorities have a pretty poor attitude to spectators being injured by players in my opinion. If a spectator is struck by a ball on the European Tour a full report is required for the circumstances, injuries, etc. The injured party is always apologised to by the player and usually given a glove or a ball :smirk: The paperwork is not about some form of compensation or apology but to help indemnify the event organisers from subsequent legal action.

Whilst I would hate to see the "no win, no fee" lawyers getting involved, if the players and organisers don't do something soon someone is going to get badly injured and the fallout will be significant legally. The conditions on the tickets won't cover a player hitting a spectator with a club they have thrown in anger.
 

Bunkermagnet

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
6,158
Location
Kent
There is probably a waiver implied or even specified in the ticket of admission.
Yes, for accidents involving a golf ball. This would surely be classed as negligence, and should be tested in court IMO. Sometimes professionals have to take responsibility for their actions, just like we all do in life.
 

atticusfinch

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
693
Here's the waiver in one USPGA tournament. The bold red section includes injury arising "out of attendance," not simply by a ball or golf shot.To me that means more than just by a ball. There's enough of an ambiguity to warrant a trial, i admit. But I feel insurance steps in somewhere before the court gets involved.

You assume all risk and danger arising out of your attendance including loss of your personal property, or injury from a golf shot or by other spectators or players, and you hereby release TOUR, the host organization, the host site, television broadcasters, sponsors, vendors and their respective affiliates, employees and agents, and all volunteers, participating players and caddies, from any and all liabilities arising out of such losses or injuries. http://valsparchampionship.com/ticketdisclaimer/
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
4,536
Location
Edinburgh
I'm not a lawyer, but`I understood that disclaimers such as this cannot absolve an organisation from responsibility where there is negligence on its part.
 

Jasonr

Club Champion
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
87
Location
Essex
I'm not a lawyer, but`I understood that disclaimers such as this cannot absolve an organisation from responsibility where there is negligence on its part.
Neither am I but I do believe you are correct but it is the proving of the negligence that will be the tricky and expensive part and also what party do you sue?

(According to google) there are normally 4 elements to prove negligence (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an actual causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm; (4) proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable;

There will be no problem proving point 3, 1 and 2 you could argue either way point 4 you could definitely have endless arguments either way. I would imagine that if there is any similar previous case law in this regard then that would play a huge part in whether a case can be brought or not.

A likely final outcome if it did get to litigation would be a fine for misconduct and a without prejudice payment to the defendant to make it all go away.
 
Last edited:

atticusfinch

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
693
Injury from negligence is exactly the risk you assume. It is a defense to negligence if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which he was participating at the time .
It is injury from intentional torts that are not covered. :sbox:
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
4,536
Location
Edinburgh
Interesting. If I take part in a dangerous activity I understand having to accept the risks of that activity but why should these risks include the possibility of someone's negligence?

I voluntarily and knowingly assume the risks of skiing but would not reckon on those including, say, injury from the negligence of a chairlift company which fails to maintain its equipment in accordance with whatever regulations apply.
 

atticusfinch

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
693
..would not reckon on those including, say, injury from the negligence of a chairlift company which fails to maintain its equipment in accordance with whatever regulations apply.
It's a given that you accept the risk of your own incompetence. You sign waivers to accept the risk of someone else's incompetence (like the chair lift company, tournament operators etc). If you don't assume the risk you're welcome to walk or watch on TV.

Negligence law can be complicated. The other poster correctly stated the elements of the tort, but a less legalistic definition is: the failure to take reasonable precautions in what you are doing to avoid foreseeable injury to others.
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
4,536
Location
Edinburgh
Are you talking of US Law, English Law or Scots Law?

My understanding does seem to be in line with this from a UK solicitors' website:

It’s common for organisers of big sporting events, or activities such as trampolining or climbing, to ask participants to sign a waiver before they take part.

Organisers hope that by signing a waiver, you effectively give up any right to make a claim for injuries you may sustain when undertaking that activity. Refusal to sign the waiver could mean that the organisers will not let you take part in the event, so it’s easy to understand why people sign them without a second thought.

Although legal in their own right, waivers can’t be used to completely shield event organisers from liability as a result of their negligence. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act, activity providers can’t exclude or restrict liability for injury or death caused as a result of their negligence.

This is only fair, of course, as you can’t really waive your right to claim if you can’t foresee all the possible risks. For example, if you sign a waiver before entering an obstacle race, should you be prevented from claiming if the poorly built wall you’re climbing collapses or if barbed wire installed as part of the course is not laid out properly and ends up badly cutting you?
 
Last edited:

atticusfinch

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
693
I'm talking in general about US law. The act cited in your quote makes your law of waivers a little different and seems to be the crux of it.
 

drdel

Tour Rookie
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
4,323
I believe there has been successful claims made by golfers against fellow golfers. On that basis surely a 'spectator' would have a stronger case than a golfer as the golfer/active participant would be an informed risk taker.
 
Top