Thunderbolt & Lightning, very very frightening...

[Face breaker]

Time to take responsibility for your own actions I'm afraid, something society seems to be doing a lot less of these days !...

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I know we were complete wazzocks for stupidly carrying on but here's the thing. Was the club negligent in its duty to us as customers in allowing us to "call it" on the day ourselves?

Sadly, this sums up modern society for me. You are fully grown men, take responsibility for your own actions and stop looking for someone else to blame

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Time to take responsibility for your own actions I'm afraid, something society seems to be doing a lot less of these days !...

Amen to that. Will only get worse sadly

 

[JohnnyDee]

Sadly, this sums up modern society for me. You are fully grown men, take responsibility for your own actions and stop looking for someone else to blame

I wonder if you might be able to understand the concept of a post by perhaps reading it in its entirety, taking into account what it's actually saying and so thereby gain a degree of understanding of what the author's point actually is.

The chronic lack of comprehension or the willingness to take a piece of text out of context amuses me greatly I must say. For me it's what makes online forums wonderfully entertaining sometimes.

To illustrate my point I include a rather relevant paragraph from my original post. It may help in illustrating what I was actually saying. The OP was a comment on they psychology of the collective herd mentality. Not once did it seek to shift the blame of reckless behaviour from those who engaged in it.

I hate the litigious society we have today, so the question is being posed from a standpoint of common sense and correct practice, nothing else.

The clue, you see, to what I'm saying is in the actual words I've used - the sequence in which they are written and therefore the meaning of what they are saying attempts to shed light upon my intended position re: to use a klaxon or not.

Now talking of modern (tabloid) society. Nothing can sum it up better for me than quoting a small part of something out of context, to attempt to subvert what the sum of the whole thing is actually saying in the first place.

 

[daymond]

You all probably just avoided appearing in the Darwin Awards Hall of Fame.

 

[Smiffy]

I've played a few times in the past where there has been a thunderstorm approaching.
I can't stop thinking "what if" especially when I am standing over the ball ready to start my swing.
So I just get off the tee and go and hide somewhere.
If it's under a tree, I make sure it's not the tallest one

 

[USER1999]

The club house can be several miles from the back end of the golf course. You can be getting a right pasting, and it might not even be raining back at the club house. It's impossible for the club to take responsibility for all eventualities, and so responsibility must rest with the players. Always.

 

[Doh]

The club were wrong to say there will be no warning of lightning (no Klaxon) and they are wrong in giving you the choice to stay out or not. As you said whether people agree or not they do have a duty of care to keep people safe by eliminating any risk or if it can't eliminated it they should reduce it significantly. It is a business it can not ignore it's duty, now if people want to make the decision to stay out after the warning so be it, they take their chances, on their own head be it.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I wonder if you might be able to understand the concept of a post by perhaps reading it in its entirety, taking into account what it's actually saying and so thereby gain a degree of understanding of what the author's point actually is.

The chronic lack of comprehension or the willingness to take a piece of text out of context amuses me greatly I must say. For me it's what makes online forums wonderfully entertaining sometimes.

To illustrate my point I include a rather relevant paragraph from my original post. It may help in illustrating what I was actually saying. The OP was a comment on they psychology of the collective herd mentality. Not once did it seek to shift the blame of reckless behaviour from those who engaged in it.



The clue, you see, to what I'm saying is in the actual words I've used - the sequence in which they are written and therefore the meaning of what they are saying attempts to shed light upon my intended position re: to use a klaxon or not.

Now talking of modern (tabloid) society. Nothing can sum it up better for me than quoting a small part of something out of context, to attempt to subvert what the sum of the whole thing is actually saying in the first place.

I refer back to my original post. Use your own brain and common sense instead of relying on someone else to make the decision for you.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Khamelion]

@ the OP

First - Stop being sheep, it's your life you only have one, so look after it.

Second - You're right a group of blokes will act irrationally, especially where there is peer pressure and bravado, but then again see point 1

Third - Yes, today's society is very much "where there's a blame there's a claim" mentality and I dare say some of the 'blokey blokes" may have been thinking if I get hit by lightening I'll sue the club for negligence. Well that's just genius you can't claim if you're dead.

Fourth - Did the club fail in it's duty of care to you all? Maybe it did, after all it didn't stop you from playing, it gave you the option, see point 1, again, but I think what you are saying is that the club should have stopped you from playing, so as not to put itself in a position where it could've been sued had the worst happened.

 

[JohnnyDee]

I'm intrigued by the discussion that's going on here some of which has little or nothing to do with my OP. So for clarity here are the salient points I was making when I started the tread.

• A group of men keen to enjoy a long awaiting much anticipated golf away day will not always behave sensibly if they run the risk of having it taken away from them.

• A golf course with no defined policy for thunderstorms could be leaving itself open to lawsuits.

•The men in this story were idiots by continuing to play in dangerous weather conditions. They chose to do this and consequently, had one, several or all of them been struck by lightning then they could blame no-one but themselves for their rash and idiotic behaviour.

• In the event no-one got struck so there is no-one to blame for anything. Nowhere does the post seek to blame anyone. Blame for something can only be apportioned to something if that something actually happens.

•Most golf courses and professional golf tours etc. have a policy of calling people in off the course when there are electrical storms. The OP believes this is good and sensible policy and should be adopted by all courses.

•A golf course leaving it to those playing in such conditions to decide for themselves whether to walk off the course or not, could possibly be setting itself up for legal action in the event of any of its customers being struck by lightning.

•The OP believes that (hypothetically) a competent lawyer acting for someone (not the silly men in this story - luckily but no thanks to their stupidity they wouldn't actually need one) struck by lightning under such circumstance, could easily prove a course / club was negligent and was not exercising its duty of care towards its customers.

•The OP abhors the dreadful "where there's blame there's a claim mentality" imported from America and rife today in modern society.

•Had the OP been struck by lightning on the day and survived the ordeal, he most likely would have said "Ouch! Blimey, that stings a bit! How silly of me to gamble on not getting hit."

•He would not have then subsequently enlisted the services of an ambulance-chasing firm of solicitors, knowing full well he had been an idiot in allowing himself to be persuaded by his mates to stay out in the storms in the first place.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I'm intrigued by the discussion that's going on here some of which has little or nothing to do with my OP. So for clarity here are the salient points I was making when I started the tread.

• A group of men keen to enjoy a long awaiting much anticipated golf away day will not always behave sensibly if they run the risk of having it taken away from them.

• A golf course with no defined policy for thunderstorms could be leaving itself open to lawsuits.

•The men in this story were idiots by continuing to play in dangerous weather conditions. They chose to do this and consequently, had one, several or all of them been struck by lightning then they could blame no-one but themselves for their rash and idiotic behaviour.

• In the event no-one got struck so there is no-one to blame for anything. Nowhere does the post seek to blame anyone. Blame for something can only be apportioned to something if that something actually happens.

•Most golf courses and professional golf tours etc. have a policy of calling people in off the course when there are electrical storms. The OP believes this is good and sensible policy and should be adopted by all courses.

•A golf course leaving it to those playing in such conditions to decide for themselves whether to walk off the course or not, could possibly be setting itself up for legal action in the event of any of its customers being struck by lightning.

•The OP believes that (hypothetically) a competent lawyer acting for someone (not the silly men in this story - luckily but no thanks to their stupidity they wouldn't actually need one) struck by lightning under such circumstance, could easily prove a course / club was negligent and was not exercising its duty of care towards its customers.

•The OP abhors the dreadful "where there's blame there's a claim mentality" imported from America and rife today in modern society.

•Had the OP been struck by lightning on the day and survived the ordeal, he most likely would have said "Ouch! Blimey, that stings a bit! How silly of me to gamble on not getting hit."

•He would not have then subsequently enlisted the services of an ambulance-chasing firm of solicitors, knowing full well he had been an idiot in allowing himself to be persuaded by his mates to stay out in the storms in the first place.

I think there is only one salient point and pretty much everyone that has replied to this thread seems to get it.

Use your own common sense and judgement.

I have been on a golf course many times when lightening has come over. When it does:

1) I do not wait for a klaxon if I think I'm in danger
2) I do not wait for a marshal in a buggy to alert me to the impending danger
3) I do not give a flying toss whether there are signs or disclaimers about lightening.
4) I do not even expect flashing neon signs on the next tee telling me not to carry on playing.

As someone said earlier, it's pretty hard to sue the golf club when you are dead.

If you or any of your blokey blokes want to carry on playing in lightening then I'm quite happy for you to do so, they will be doing the gene pool a favour.

 

[JohnnyDee]

I think there is only one salient point and pretty much everyone that has replied to this thread seems to get it.

Use your own common sense and judgement.

I have been on a golf course many times when lightening has come over. When it does:

1) I do not wait for a klaxon if I think I'm in danger
2) I do not wait for a marshal in a buggy to alert me to the impending danger
3) I do not give a flying toss whether there are signs or disclaimers about lightening.
4) I do not even expect flashing neon signs on the next tee telling me not to carry on playing.

As someone said earlier, it's pretty hard to sue the golf club when you are dead.

If you or any of your blokey blokes want to carry on playing in lightening then I'm quite happy for you to do so, they will be doing the gene pool a favour.

Some of your points are perhaps inarguably correct. Only problem is that they bear no relevance whatsoever to anything my post has said.

They are relevant perhaps to what others have misconstrued the OP to be saying.

I would recommend a course in basic English comprehension to remedy this.

 

[Andy808]

We played a match a couple of years ago and a storm got too close as our group were about to tee off. I refused to start until it was safe to do so. After some barracking from some of the others waiting to tee off they all seemed pretty pleased when it passed right over the course.
I will never play in a storm that is passing over head as my life is worth far more than a game of golf and I don't need a assi pro to tell me when it's too dangerous.

 

[drdel]

A Golf Club is a business and (whether you like or not) is staffed by people who are expected to be professionally competent to do the job they do. This means the Club and its employees owe a duty of care to the 'customers' and sometimes this means ensuring golfers behave responsible, sometimes in despite of themselves. Consequently a Club must take responsibility for players on the course, that's why you must sign in before playing.

Allowing players to play when there is a heightened risk of injury or damage to property, (high winds, Lightening etc) must be the decision of the professional staff and if injury or damage to any 3rd party did occur, like it or not, they would be responsible.


A prudent Club would not allow players on the course. Blowing a Klaxon is seen as the accepted way of managing this situation.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Our pro shop is "supposed" to sound an air horn (the thing they use for shotgun starts) when there is lightening around. Normally they open the door, wait for a flash and then have a 20 minute discussion amongst the office staff, bar steward, passing members and uncle Tom Cobbly and all without ever sounding the horn

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Some of your points are perhaps inarguably correct. Only problem is that they bear no relevance whatsoever to anything my post has said.

They are relevant perhaps to what others have misconstrued the OP to be saying.

I would recommend a course in basic English comprehension to remedy this.

For what it is worth, I have read and fully understand your post but whatever the law says, I don't agree that the club, course, owners or whoever has a 'care of duty' to look after it's patrons when out in the middle of a field. Quite simply, the law is an ass and society has backed itself into a corner due to the precedent set by some ridiculous lawsuits. Unfortunately we now live in a society where everybody is out for a fast buck.

Have you ever googled some of the stupid lawsuits in America? How about the owner of a mobile home that put on the cruise control and got up to make a cup of tea. Not surprisingly, it careered off the road and crashed and guess what, he sued the manufacturer because it didn't state in the owners manual that you could get out the driver seat while the vehicle is moving. That is the type of mind numbingly stupid litigation that pops up these days because golf courses don't prevent halfwits from playing in lightening or posting signs everywhere advising them not to do so. For christ sake, use your brain and stop trying to lay the blame on everyone else! The bottom line is we pay out billions a year in lawsuits and all that money has to come from somewhere and it is you, me and everyone else that is stumping up the cash in increased prices for products and insurance premiums etc (I know this for a fact because I work for an insurance company)

Want to read a few examples of ridiculous cases? Try these

http://money.howstuffworks.com/8-outrageous-lawsuits.htm#page=3

 

[JohnnyDee]

A Golf Club is a business and (whether you like or not) is staffed by people who are expected to be professionally competent to do the job they do. This means the Club and its employees owe a duty of care to the 'customers' and sometimes this means ensuring golfers behave responsible, sometimes in despite of themselves. Consequently a Club must take responsibility for players on the course, that's why you must sign in before playing.

Allowing players to play when there is a heightened risk of injury or damage to property, (high winds, Lightening etc) must be the decision of the professional staff and if injury or damage to any 3rd party did occur, like it or not, they would be responsible.


A prudent Club would not allow players on the course. Blowing a Klaxon is seen as the accepted way of managing this situation.

This exactly!! I would concur fully with your assessment.:thup:

For what it is worth, I have read and fully understand your post but whatever the law says, I don't agree that the club, course, owners or whoever has a 'care of duty' to look after it's patrons when out in the middle of a field.

For christ sake, use your brain and stop trying to lay the blame on everyone else!

Want to read a few examples of ridiculous cases? Try these

http://money.howstuffworks.com/8-outrageous-lawsuits.htm#page=3

I think you'll find that all businesses providing a service have a duty of care to their patrons and or customers.

Are you using the word your in its global context, i.e. to mean all of us as a race or nation? If not and you do in fact mean *me* then you clearly do not understand what I've said. I am trying to explain to you that despite what you and others perceive, through not reading what I actually said - preferring oddly to comment on what I haven't said - let me for one last time spell it out.

I am not, nor indeed would I ever try and lay the blame on anyone in this situation - in this scenario nothing happened. There is no blame to be laid on anyone. However had I been struck by lightning then there would be only one person to blame. That person would be me.

Your stuff about cock and bull insurance claims although highly amusing has no place in this thread and may be better posted in a separate thread.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

It was a generic 'your' but if you think the cap fits then feel free to wear it :thup:

And I happen to think the link I posted is relevant to this thread because it highlights the ridiculous litigation culture we now live in. 20 years ago golf courses had no need to warn customers about the danger of lightening because people used their common sense.

 

[JohnnyDee]

It was a generic 'your' but if you think the cap fits then feel free to wear it :thup:

Ah...I see. Well if you don't mind then as I know the cap doesn't fit I'll leave it for someone else to wear.