Golfer awarded near 300k in damages for incident

cairny

TheDoc wrote: »

Your debating my posts and points, not having a go at me, so I'm not taking it any other way then gaining more information from someone who knows more. I don't pretend to be a genius, happy to take corrections when they come

And I definitly didn't know that in regards civil cases.

So I guess in principle there is no such thing as a completely innocent freak incident, and someone must always be liable in any given situation?

As a total matter of interest, thinking of my own 18th, there is a large rock structure that forms a little waterfall for a lake feature. In a hypothetical situation if I hit a ball, and it starts to head towards that structure, I'm not going to shout fore. There is no inherent danger or location to another player or party.

But as I'm sure we have all seen, balls can violently and unpredictably shoot in unpredicted directions and in some cases at unbelievable lengths.

In a case where I hit a shot where the ball hits the rock feature and fires obscurely to hit someone say on our chipping green ( about 80 yards to the right) would I be held liable in that instance?

I've never heard or seen anyone declare fore when a ball is heading towards a lake or structure, where impact could violently fire into another direction sporadically.

It's hard to say, I would say probably not liable but every case is different. A legal term often used is "reasonably foreseeable". So the question you'd ask is was the accident reasonably foreseeable, the more freakish the accident the less foreseeable in general.

The closer you are to a clubhouse or a chipping green etc the more foreseeable hitting someone would be.

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

It's hard to say, I would say probably not liable but every case is different. A legal term often used is "reasonably foreseeable". So the question you'd ask is was the accident reasonably foreseeable, the more freakish the accident the less foreseeable in general.

The closer you are to a clubhouse or a chipping green etc the more foreseeable hitting someone would be.

In this case I think it was reasonably forseeable that the lady in question could get hit by standing on the balcony (or at least as reasonably forseable as it was that he could hit her)
The problem is that its also reasonable to assume that someone will shout FORE in this scenario. He didnt ergo...

I have heard that this balcony wasnt part of the original design, that instead it was supposed to be a snooker room but since it has no disabled access it was scrapped and a balcony replaced it.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

In this case I think it was reasonably forseeable that the lady in question could get hit by standing on the balcony (or at least as reasonably forseable as it was that he could hit her)
The problem is that its also reasonable to assume that someone will shout FORE in this scenario. He didnt ergo...

I have heard that this balcony wasnt part of the original design, that instead it was supposed to be a snooker room but since it has no disabled access it was scrapped and a balcony replaced it.

Judge felt the opposite it seems-

'Judge Peart said it was safe to say that if you were standing on the veranda of your golf club on a pleasant April evening chatting to friends you do not expect to be struck by a golf ball by somebody playing a nine iron to the 18th green.'

Interesting about the design, I remember something during the original case that the golf club had a golf architect or designer in to give evidence, I wonder if that came out in the evidence?

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

Judge felt the opposite it seems-

'Judge Peart said it was safe to say that if you were standing on the veranda of your golf club on a pleasant April evening chatting to friends you do not expect to be struck by a golf ball by somebody playing a nine iron to the 18th green.'

Interesting about the design, I remember something during the original case that the golf club had a golf architect or designer in to give evidence, I wonder if that came out in the evidence?

Maybe it *should* be reasonably forseable that your clubhouse veranda is safe, but in this case its clearly not!

I still think the judge is wrong, would it be reasonable to assume that sitting in the stands of a rugby match you wouldnt get hit by a ball? Im not sure of the difference really...

I can guarantee that I could shout FORE all day long and not a single person on our veranda would duck, despite the fact that most of them have probably hit the roof at one time or another.

golfwallah

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Mrs Brennan couldn't sue the golf club Old Conna as she was a member (only joined 3 weeks prior) so would effectively be suing herself.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Many member clubs nowadays are effectively constituted in a form whereby they are run by a limited company (usually limited by guarantee and with the same name as the club but with "limited" added at the end). In this case the members of the club are distinctly separate from the limited company running them.

In law, limited companies have a legal persona, quite distinct from its members and also distinct from members of any club that it is running.

So unless someone can correct me on this, I would assume there would be no problem in suing your club, where it is a separate legal company, as you are not suing yourself. It may have been different years ago, when clubs were constituted in different formats (e.g. as "trusts").

For example, even if you were a shareholder in a public company (i.e. a member), you can still sue that company for any wrong they may have done to you.

Russman

golfwallah wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Many member clubs nowadays are effectively constituted in a form whereby they are run by a limited company (usually limited by guarantee and with the same name as the club but with "limited" added at the end). In this case the members of the club are distinctly separate from the limited company running them.

In law, limited companies have a legal persona, quite distinct from its members and also distinct from members of any club that it is running.

So unless someone can correct me on this, I would assume there would be no problem in suing your club, where it is a separate legal company, as you are not suing yourself. It may have been different years ago, when clubs were constituted in different formats (e.g. as "trusts").

For example, even if you were a shareholder in a public company (i.e. a member), you can still sue that company for any wrong they may have done to you.

I was semi involved in a case (granted about 10/12 years ago) and the barrister's advice was that it would be incredibly difficult to sue the club you're a member of as it's essentially using yourself. He said you would need to prove malice to be able to sue.

Things could be different now, I guess if some clubs are limited companies.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

Maybe it *should* be reasonably forseable that your clubhouse veranda is safe, but in this case its clearly not!

I still think the judge is wrong, would it be reasonable to assume that sitting in the stands of a rugby match you wouldnt get hit by a ball? Im not sure of the difference really...

I can guarantee that I could shout FORE all day long and not a single person on our veranda would duck, despite the fact that most of them have probably hit the roof at one time or another.

Meh...hard to say that a judge is wrong without at least having been able to read the judgement. I've been involved in cases and reading reports in the paper afterwards you'd wonder if the reporter was there at all.

superhooper

cairny wrote: »

Meh...hard to say that a judge is wrong without at least having been able to read the judgement. I've been involved in cases and reading reports in the paper afterwards you'd wonder if the reporter was there at all.

Good point. Media like to sensationalise. I'd like to see the judgement.

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

Meh...hard to say that a judge is wrong without at least having been able to read the judgement. I've been involved in cases and reading reports in the paper afterwards you'd wonder if the reporter was there at all.

Well I think he was wrong to award damages against the golfer, irrespective of how he worded it. She got injured and her insurance should cover her costs imo.

You often see signs in premises that try to absolve owners of any liability even arising out of negligence on their part, I'm not sure of their legal standing but assume they have none.
Otherwise I'm going to stick one on my golf balls in future!

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

Well I think he was wrong to award damages against the golfer, irrespective of how he worded it. She got injured and her insurance should cover her costs imo.

You often see signs in premises that try to absolve owners of any liability even arising out of negligence on their part, I'm not sure of their legal standing but assume they have none.
Otherwise I'm going to stick one on my golf balls in future!

The signs...some but very very little and relate to occupiers liability, visitors to premises, not relevant here at all....nice idea all the same, might make for a delay on the 1st though..

"I'm playing a Titleist 2 Further to and in accordance with the occupiers liability act 1995 I hereby hive notice etc etc...."

What do you mean her insurance? You can't insure against someone's else's liability. She had health insurance, VHI getting refunded 60k.

Golfers not immune from liability. What's the difference to hitting someone with a ball or a car? If you're wrong you're wrong.

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

Well I think he was wrong to award damages against the golfer, irrespective of how he worded it. She got injured and her insurance should cover her costs imo.

Who do you expect should pay for the damage and suffering this lady suffered? Her insurance company? Why? If I ran into your car in a car park, would you expect your insurance company to pay the costs?

The golfer playing the shot into the 18th has a duty of care to others, and he obviously did not exercise that at all, as he had no idea where his golf ball had gone.

It's a simple fact that the golfer with the 9 iron was sued (and nobody else AFAIK), so who would you expect the Judge should award the damages against?

GreeBo wrote: »

You often see signs in premises that try to absolve owners of any liability even arising out of negligence on their part, I'm not sure of their legal standing but assume they have none.
Otherwise I'm going to stick one on my golf balls in future!

Your golf ball does not suddenly decide to move by itself, so therefore putting any disclaimer on it would be a waste of ink. You're better off putting a sign on your back, or having a disclaimer tattooed on your forehead tbh.

golfwallah

Russman wrote: »

I was semi involved in a case (granted about 10/12 years ago) and the barrister's advice was that it would be incredibly difficult to sue the club you're a member of as it's essentially using yourself. He said you would need to prove malice to be able to sue.

Things could be different now, I guess if some clubs are limited companies.

Quite - to me it looks like a grey area that has yet to be tested in court. And you never know what might happen, until a member somewhere brings a case against the limited company, in whose name the assets of the club are vested and the accounts are published (and registered with the Companies Registration Office).

As far as I know, many clubs changed from trustee status (under which liability of members is unlimited) to company status (under which liability of members is limited by guarantee to a small sum, usually about €1), in order to protect their members in the event of being sued and the assets of the club being insufficient to cover costs.

Quite a few golf clubs now operate as limited companies, although effective control remains with their committees, so what might happen in any particular set of circumstances is not exactly clear cut. A further issue that a lot of people don't think about is the responsibilities of directors of the company limited by guarantee. In the event of directors being found negligent or reckless, they could find themselves personally liable in the, perhaps, unlikely event of the club losing a case and having insufficient insurance or assets to settle the award against them.

Meanwhile, consult your insurance broker and lawyer, or continue in blissful ignorance , I guess!

Russman

cairny wrote: »

Golfers not immune from liability. What's the difference to hitting someone with a ball or a car? If you're wrong you're wrong.

No, they're not. But it opens up a potentially huge can of worms. This guy apparently hit a 9 iron, so, lets say for a moment he was exercising his duty of care, you'd have to assume there's at least a few seconds to see where the ball is going and shout "fore". What about a situation where there isn't time to do that ? I'm sure there are many greens that are close enough to tees that, while not really being in the line of play, a really bad snap hook or shank will send the ball across the green. Obviously common sense should apply and guys on the green should let the guys tee off or vice versa, but sometimes its isn't that simple. I know there's two greens in my place that aren't in the line of play at all from a given tee box, and yet I just can't hit from those tee boxes while there are people on the greens because I've hit a few howlers in the past that have gone screaming towards the greens.

I actually played with a guy at the weekend that hit the clubhouse from a position you wouldn't think possible, the building is basically at right angles from where he was teeing off and only about 10/15 paces away, never in a million years is it in play, yet he managed to hit so far out on the tow of the club the ball screamed off pretty much at 90 degrees to his line of play and into the wall of the building. Luckily there was nobody standing there, but there wouldn't have been time to shout "fore" had there been.

I don't know what a fair solution is TBH, I'd hate for golf and golf clubs to end up hamstrung with "health and safety" like so many other aspects of life nowadays. Maybe members should have some sort of disclaimer applied to them, similar to that which is on the back of tickets to a pro tournament. is that going too far ? I don't know.

Without having read the judgement, I do disagree with the judge saying the guy was negligent, he may have been careless, but if he didn't know the ball was heading to the clubhouse, he didn't know. What if he'd been a visitor and didn't know the clubhouse was there ? Would that have made the visitor non-negligent ? I have a bit of sympathy for the girl that was hit, but I really hope as golfers we don't end up having to start considering all sorts of legal and insurance ramifications anytime we hit a bad shot when we go out to take part in our supposedly enjoyable pastime.

IITYWYBMAD

Russman wrote: »

Without having read the judgement, I do disagree with the judge saying the guy was negligent, he may have been careless, but if he didn't know the ball was heading to the clubhouse, he didn't know. What if he'd been a visitor and didn't know the clubhouse was there ? Would that have made the visitor non-negligent ? I have a bit of sympathy for the girl that was hit, but I really hope as golfers we don't end up having to start considering all sorts of legal and insurance ramifications anytime we hit a bad shot when we go out to take part in our supposedly enjoyable pastime.

I think the Judge was technically if not morally correct in finding the golfer negligent. He also, in the judgement, made reference to the fact that there had been talk of the case been taken against the club, but that that had been dropped, which is a telling statement in my book. What I would deduce from that comment is that the club should have shared some of the blame by not having sufficient procedures in-place to do all they could to try and prevent this. The judge can only make a determination on the facts as they are presented.

I've played Old Conna a number of times, and the club house is on the left of the 18th hole as you approach the green, which is a par 5. If we assume that the player was playing in from 120-140 yards he would have had a good idea where the club house was, in all probability. So a defense of " I didn't know it was there" is moot. Secondly, I think it may have been incumbent on the Golf Club to ensure that there were adequate barriers/nets/whatever in-place for this eventuality. As the complainant decided to sue the golfer and not the golf club (for whatever reason) I think the Judge was correct in finding fault with the golfer.

Russman

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I've played Old Conna a number of times, and the club house is on the left of the 18th hole as you approach the green, which is a par 5. If we assume that the player was playing in from 120-140 yards he would have had a good idea where the club house was, in all probability. So a defense of " I didn't know it was there" is moot. Secondly, I think it may have been incumbent on the Golf Club to ensure that there were adequate barriers/nets/whatever in-place for this eventuality. As the complainant decided to sue the golfer and not the golf club (for whatever reason) I think the Judge was correct in finding fault with the golfer.

I thought he was playing in from way out left, on the 1st fairway, though ?
If, and its all based on assumption, that's the case, and the trees obscured his view of the clubhouse, or he got his angles mixed up, I can't understand what good shouting fore would have done. It might have made him not negligent in a legal sense, but in practical terms, how many people on a balcony would actually duck if they heard a shout of fore coming from the course they're overlooking ? I'd suggest almost nobody would.

Not saying he did nothing wrong or is without blame, I just think its a very grey area for golf clubs to be getting into. No club can possibly foresee every possible risk.

IITYWYBMAD

Russman wrote: »

I thought he was playing in from way out left, on the 1st fairway, though ?
If, and its all based on assumption, that's the case, and the trees obscured his view of the clubhouse, or he got his angles mixed up, I can't understand what good shouting fore would have done. It might have made him not negligent in a legal sense, but in practical terms, how many people on a balcony would actually duck if they heard a shout of fore coming from the course they're overlooking ? I'd suggest almost nobody would.

Not saying he did nothing wrong or is without blame, I just think its a very grey area for golf clubs to be getting into. No club can possibly foresee every possible risk.

It's been a while since I've played Old Conna, but if your crossing from the 18th to the 1st, you still have quite a clear view of the club house. Assuming you're paying your third with a 9 iron, it would reasonable to assume that you are aware of where the club house is. That would be my opinion.

I agree with you, in that I'm sure that he did not do this on purpose, and even the best of golfers are prone to hooks and slices (shanks even...) and again it is a grey area, but I also think that legally he is negligent, even if there was no malice or intent involved, and I've really no idea what (if any) procedures Old Conna have in-place to to prevent this happening. They (the club) do have a duty of care, as do all golfers. I also don't think the judgement would have been any different if he had shouted fore.

FixdePitchmark

@ IITYWYBMAD

See quote from Health and Safety Act.

The "reasonably practicable" test was first defined in Irish law in 2005 and is a tough burden for employers to discharge. It requires that an employer “has exercised all due care by putting in place the necessary protective and preventive measures, having identified the hazards and assessed the risks to safety and health likely to result in accidents or injury to health at the place of work concerned and where the putting in place of any further measures is grossly disproportionate having regard to the unusual, unforeseeable and exceptional nature of any circumstance or occurrence that may result in an accident at work or injury to health at that place of work.”

This is from workplace legislation and as cairny has explained civil law is different. But the clubhouse is a workplace The golf course is a workplace

But - it is accepted in law that - you can't deal with the unusual.

The problem for golf clubs is - if you have areas - that a ball is regularly at risk of hitting people - you need to do a risk assessment.

Notices or where the risk is very high - there should be barriers.

My own point of view - it is a bit daft to have a clubhouse alongside a green - and by the sounds of it someone playing from the left hand side rough. I'd suggest the club house there has been hit a good few times ?

It would be horrible if clubhouse needed a barrier up on balconies - but where there is a very high risk - it is sad to say some may need them.


I feel sorry for both parties - hopefully his insurance covers it and everybody moves on.

I don't like some of the tone towards the injured party here. In fact, it wouldn't be tolerated in most other threads.

IITYWYBMAD

The complainant did not sue the Golf Club, so the veracity of what due care was in place by the club was never tested, as far as I know.

I assume that this was on legal advice from her side.

@FixedPitchmark, I agree with your sentiments with regards to both parties, and there are no 'real' winners here. I suspect that he may have to sue his insurance to cover the payout, and they may counter sue others. I doubt that this is the end f it....

Russman

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

It's been a while since I've played Old Conna, but if your crossing from the 18th to the 1st, you still have quite a clear view of the club house. Assuming you're paying your third with a 9 iron, it would reasonable to assume that you are aware of where the club house is. That would be my opinion.

I agree with you, in that I'm sure that he did not do this on purpose, and even the best of golfers are prone to hooks and slices (shanks even...) and again it is a grey area, but I also think that legally he is negligent, even if there was no malice or intent involved, and I've really no idea what (if any) procedures Old Conna have in-place to to prevent this happening. They (the club) do have a duty of care, as do all golfers. I also don't think the judgement would have been any different if he had shouted fore.

I'd broadly agree with you. I've no doubt there was no intent, and that he knew the clubhouse was there alright, but either he lost sight of the ball, didn't see the flight or completely got his angles mixed up and didn't think the ball was heading towards the building.

But, I'm still not sure negligent is appropriate. If the judgement would have been the same had he shouted fore, are we essentially saying that someone hits a bad shot, shouts fore, and the ball hits someone, that they're negligent ? Negligent of what ? Sure that would be the end of golf as we know it. You'd have risk assessment before every shot.

Just wondering also, if the ball had deflected off a tree or rock and onto the balcony, would he still be negligent ? If nobody saw the flight of it, could he have claimed this possibility ? Only throwing it out there in terms of where do we draw the line with stuff like this ?

SnowDrifts

golfwallah wrote: »

Quite - to me it looks like a grey area that has yet to be tested in court. And you never know what might happen, until a member somewhere brings a case against the limited company, in whose name the assets of the club are vested and the accounts are published (and registered with the Companies Registration Office).

As far as I know, many clubs changed from trustee status (under which liability of members is unlimited) to company status (under which liability of members is limited by guarantee to a small sum, usually about €1), in order to protect their members in the event of being sued and the assets of the club being insufficient to cover costs.

Quite a few golf clubs now operate as limited companies, although effective control remains with their committees, so what might happen in any particular set of circumstances is not exactly clear cut. A further issue that a lot of people don't think about is the responsibilities of directors of the company limited by guarantee. In the event of directors being found negligent or reckless, they could find themselves personally liable in the, perhaps, unlikely event of the club losing a case and having insufficient insurance or assets to settle the award against them.

Meanwhile, consult your insurance broker and lawyer, or continue in blissful ignorance , I guess!

A quick search on CRO shows that Old Conna WAS indeed a registered company but was dissolved in May of this year. Interesting.

Dr_Colossus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I feel sorry for both parties - hopefully his insurance covers it and everybody moves on.

I don't like some of the tone towards the injured party here. In fact, it wouldn't be tolerated in most other threads.

+1 and personally don't understand it. It's a freak accident but I think the fact that the claimant was on the balcony of the club house should have a greater impact on the case and the responsibility of the club than if she was struck while playing the course. The club house is a fixed structure and it's occupants should be able to assume reasonable protection from the dangers and hazards from the golf played on the course.
It will be interesting to see how this case develops and the involvement or lack thereof of the insurance companies involved.

FixdePitchmark

If you excuse a bit of hyperbole for a second.

From reading other threads on here. I get the sense that certain clubs in parts of Dublin are not open - everybody has created the club for themselves and their families - everybody knows each other. This has been celebrated here.

The old boys club attitude.

I get a sense once you do anything against this you are blackballed - labelled and worse, a sort of smear campaign starts.

I think "lads" - need to leave that at the car park.

A women was injured - she had a stroke.

No matter who the personalities are - that needs to be left behind. The ruling has to be accepted , even if he was one of the "boys".

IITYWYBMAD

Russman wrote: »

....But, I'm still not sure negligent is appropriate.

You have to separate the legal definition/interpretation from the moral one. Morally, I would not say that this man was negligent, or that he did not take a duty of care (as I doubt he did this on purpose and never imagined he would hit this lady) but legally he is negligent, as he played the shot and hit her.

Russman wrote: »

from If the judgement would have been the same had he shouted fore, are we essentially saying that someone hits a bad shot, shouts fore, and the ball hits someone, that they're negligent ?

I think that that's a very good question, and based on this Judges view, the answer has to be yes.

Russman wrote: »

Negligent of what ? Sure that would be the end of golf as we know it. You'd have risk assessment before every shot.

I don't believe so. I think that there is a reasonable duty of care on all of us as golfers to make sure that the possibility of hurting another golfer is minimised. Again, I'm not saying that this was/is the case in this particular instance, but the Judge found that a reasonable duty of care was not adhered to. Having read the judgement in-full, I'm also aware that the conduct of the golfers insurance company were a factor in this finding. So the case is a bit more complicated that it would originally appear.

Russman wrote: »

Just wondering also, if the ball had deflected off a tree or rock and onto the balcony, would he still be negligent ? If nobody saw the flight of it, could he have claimed this possibility ? Only throwing it out there in terms of where do we draw the line with stuff like this ?

I suspect it would have been a mitigating factor, should the above have happened and *maybe* some proportionality could be attributed to factors outside of the golfers control. But as I have said above, the ball does not move by itself.... although it can be influenced.

Dr_Colossus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Having read the judgement in-full, I'm also aware that the conduct of the golfers insurance company were a factor in this finding. So the case is a bit more complicated that it would originally appear.

Do you have a link to said judgement? Would be interested in reading as I assume would a lot of other golfers on here.

IITYWYBMAD

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Do you have a link to said judgement? Would be interested in reading as I assume would a lot of other golfers on here.

No link I'm afraid. You can request and pay for a PDF version from The Courts service, or it will be published in-full in the coming months, and available for free on the Judgements DB. I've access through my Job.

The relevant points from the Judge are as follows (from the news-wires):

"I have taken a strong view against that proposition and it is only fair to say that there was no question about her trying to exaggerate her symptoms," the judge said. The court had heard that Ms Brennan (56) of The Park, Cabinteely, Co Dublin, was standing on the balcony of Old Conna Golf Club, Bray, Co Wicklow, in April 2009 when she was hit on the head. She suffered a stroke some days later.

She had sued Patrick Trundle, a fellow member of the Old Conna Golf Club, which she had joined only three weeks before the incident. The judge said the award was against Mr Trundle only, since a claim against the golf club had all but been abandoned.

The judge said it was safe to say that anyone standing on the veranda of their golf club chatting to friends did not expect to be struck by a golf ball by somebody playing a nine iron to the 18th green.

"But these things happen when things go wrong on the golf course, as Ms Brennan now knows. She received a severe blow to the head from a golf ball and fell to the ground," the judge said.

"Mr Trundle's ball clearly hit the plaintiff's head with great force given the serious injury she has suffered, the effects of which remain with her to this day," the judge said.

"It felt like her head had been split in two."

The judge said a hit golf ball was a dangerous missile travelling at considerable speed and it would, as a matter of probability if not inevitability, cause injury if it hit a person on the head. In circumstances where Mr Trundle did not 
know where his ball had gone it ought to have occurred to him in the seconds he had to react that it may have travelled towards the clubhouse, which was well within the range of a nine iron. It was not unforeseeable and he had a duty of care to others.

Ms Brennan's vision was so badly affected following the blow that she would find it difficult to drive and carry out her normal day-to-day activities. She also had walking difficulties.

Mr Trundle's insurers had employed a detective agency to covertly film her as she walked her dog and relied on this evidence in court to suggest she was exaggerating her difficulties.

GreeBo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Who do you expect should pay for the damage and suffering this lady suffered? Her insurance company? Why? If I ran into your car in a car park, would you expect your insurance company to pay the costs?

Her insurance should cover her injuries. Its a golf course, people get hit by golf balls at the golf course all the time.
Penalising the golfer who hit the ball is crazy. Her insurance could try to sue the club, who would in then sue the architect/engineer.

She cant sue herself thus it comes out of her own insurance.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

The golfer playing the shot into the 18th has a duty of care to others, and he obviously did not exercise that at all, as he had no idea where his golf ball had gone.

I often hit the ball and it lands where I cant see it where I dont know what/who is over there. I shout FORE but have no idea what I will find when I get over there.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

It's a simple fact that the golfer with the 9 iron was sued (and nobody else AFAIK), so who would you expect the Judge should award the damages against?

No one, there shouldnt be damages awarded, thats my point.

GreeBo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I think the Judge was technically if not morally correct in finding the golfer negligent. He also, in the judgement, made reference to the fact that there had been talk of the case been taken against the club, but that that had been dropped, which is a telling statement in my book. What I would deduce from that comment is that the club should have shared some of the blame by not having sufficient procedures in-place to do all they could to try and prevent this. The judge can only make a determination on the facts as they are presented.

So you think if the golfer had shouted FORE he wouldnt have been found negligent? Or what other aspect of the case do you think he was careless?
Hitting a ball towards a green on a golf course is hardly carelessness.

I dont follow your point about the case against the club being dropped? What bearing does that have on the case against the golfer? Why is it "telling"?

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

As the complainant decided to sue the golfer and not the golf club (for whatever reason) I think the Judge was correct in finding fault with the golfer.

So because the woman chose to sue the golfer that makes it his fault? If she had sued the club it wouldnt have been his fault? Surely the plaintiff doesnt get to decide who is at fault!

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

I often hit the ball and it lands where I cant see it where I dont know what/who is over there. I shout FORE but have no idea what I will find when I get over there.

That's exactly it, and how this is potentially the thin end of the wedge. Where do we draw the line with this duty of care ? No blind holes, no blind shots, having to walk 200yds to make sure nobody is near where we intend to hit to ? Despite the inherent difficulty in actually hitting the ball straight in the first place. What about the adjacent fairway ?

Would the ruling have been different had she been actually playing on the course, as opposed to sitting in the clubhouse ? Maybe that's the key point.

GreeBo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I agree with you, in that I'm sure that he did not do this on purpose, and even the best of golfers are prone to hooks and slices (shanks even...) and again it is a grey area, but I also think that legally he is negligent, even if there was no malice or intent involved, and I've really no idea what (if any) procedures Old Conna have in-place to to prevent this happening. They (the club) do have a duty of care, as do all golfers. I also don't think the judgement would have been any different if he had shouted fore.

http://www.claims.ie/38 wrote:

To establish negligence, you have to show the "A B Cs" of negligence: (a) a duty of care must exist between the person injured and the person responsible for that injury; (b) conduct of the defendant fell short of that duty of care; and (c) resultant damages.

I still disagree that he was negligent other than not shouting FORE.
Its not unreasonable to hit a golf ball towards a green, thats the point of the game. He didnt tee up a ball and whack it towards the clubhouse for fun, he was playing the game as it was designed to be played.
I'm also unclear as to what his duty of care would be, other than to shout FORE in this instance.

If shouting FORE makes no differnce why did the judge reference it?
To me, considering that he was playing the game fairly, all he could have done differently is shout FORE. It may not have made any difference but that was the only option open to him.
Other than that does it mean that we, as golfers, cannot take on certain shots in case we injure someone?

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

Would the ruling have been different had she been actually playing on the course, as opposed to sitting in the clubhouse ? Maybe that's the key point.

But her sitting there was her choice/action not his. He could do nothing about that anymore than if she had decided to lie down in the middle of the road at night, apart from not playing the shot because the club house is nearby.

That sets a dangerous precedent.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

But her sitting there was her choice/action not his. He could do nothing about that anymore than if she had decided to lie down in the middle of the road at night, apart from not playing the shot because the club house is nearby.

That sets a dangerous precedent.

True enough, I hadn't thought of it that way. Which then raises the question of is the club conceivably at fault for not sufficiently protecting the balcony area from something that "might" happen ? Personally I think not, as you can't cover every eventuality, but still..........

Its a can of worms !!

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

True enough, I hadn't thought of it that way. Which then raises the question of is the club conceivably at fault for not sufficiently protecting the balcony area from something that "might" happen ? Personally I think not, as you can't cover every eventuality, but still..........

Its a can of worms !!

Which is why I think the designer/architect should be at fault. Same way as if a bridge is designed badly and it collapses on someone. If its built to spec then its not the builders fault.

superhooper

Open to correction here but perhaps an analogy for this case is like someone driving a car in slow traffic. They rear end another car as they didn't give themselves enough stopping room. This may be because they miscalculated their ability to stop due to various outside influences, rain,tyres etc.,etc. but regardless of how careful they thought they were they are liable.

GreeBo

superhooper wrote: »

Open to correction here but perhaps an analogy for this case is like someone driving a car in slow traffic. They rear end another car as they didn't give themselves enough stopping room. This may be because they miscalculated their ability to stop due to various outside influences, rain,tyres etc.,etc. but regardless of how careful they thought they were they are liable.

I dont think so, what did the player do in this scenario akin to not leaving enough stopping room? Other than "hit it better" what were his options?
Unless you are going to provide rules as to what shots each handicap level can play I dont see the analogy.

To me its more akin to a player cooling down on court #4 getting hit by a ball from centre court at Wimbledon.
The player who hit the ball wasnt trying to hit them, they knew there was likely or could be a person in the vicinity of where their ball was going.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

Her insurance should cover her injuries. Its a golf course, people get hit by golf balls at the golf course all the time.
Penalising the golfer who hit the ball is crazy. Her insurance could try to sue the club, who would in then sue the architect/engineer.

She cant sue herself thus it comes out of her own insurance.


Please stop saying this, it's nonsense, insurance like this covers your liability to others it's of no use to the injured party, it's like being the driver of a car involved in an accident, can't claim from own insurance for injuries. Her only avenue for compensation was golfer and or club, she sued both but club successfully defended.

Its probably best to wait for full judgement to be available, we're going down very wrong avenues here, Helath and Safety Act has no role here at all for example.

In simple terms the more likely the danger the greater the duty of care, so the freakier the shot the less chance of being found liable.

This case does not change anything, was probably only defended because of the delay in her injuries coming to light.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

But her sitting there was her choice/action not his. He could do nothing about that anymore than if she had decided to lie down in the middle of the road at night, apart from not playing the shot because the club house is nearby.

That sets a dangerous precedent.

He didn't shout fore, whether or not this would have prevented the accident is debatable as you've pointed out. What it did however was allow the Judge to find against him without creating the dangerous precedent your refer to, which would be akin to imposing strict liability on all golfers.

superhooper

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont think so, what did the player do in this scenario akin to not leaving enough stopping room? Other than "hit it better" what were his options?
Unless you are going to provide rules as to what shots each handicap level can play I dont see the analogy.

To me its more akin to a player cooling down on court #4 getting hit by a ball from centre court at Wimbledon.
The player who hit the ball wasnt trying to hit them, they knew there was likely or could be a person in the vicinity of where their ball was going.

In the case of the Golfer he could have used a wedge. Over the years as a non regular golfer I have taken decisions like this especially close to car parks etc. I would just play more conservatively-use less club.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont think so, what did the player do in this scenario akin to not leaving enough stopping room?.

If you're looking for an analogy then forget about stopping room, the guy was driving with his eyes closed.

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

Please stop saying this, it's nonsense, insurance like this covers your liability to others it's of no use to the injured party, it's like being the driver of a car involved in an accident, can't claim from own insurance for injuries. Her only avenue for compensation was golfer and or club, she sued both but club successfully defended.

Insurance like what? I have health insurance that covers me if I get injured etc. Do you know what insurance she has to state that hers doesnt cover her?
My car insurance does have a health aspect, I'd use it if I wrapped my car
around a tree for example. Otherwise how do you think people are covered for injuries?

cairny wrote: »

Its probably best to wait for full judgement to be available, we're going down very wrong avenues here, Helath and Safety Act has no role here at all for example.

In simple terms the more likely the danger the greater the duty of care, so the freakier the shot the less chance of being found liable.

This case does not change anything, was probably only defended because of the delay in her injuries coming to light.

I dont think anyone mentioned Health & Safety? Neither were employees so not relevant as you say.
There is an equal likelihood of danger from pretty much any full shot you hit on a golf course, I dont think your duty of care extends beyond shouting FORE when your ball can possibly hit someone.

Her case seems to be heavily weighted towards the mental anguish side of things, if thats the case couldnt I sue you if you hit me while Im playing (rather than spectating on the balcony)? I reckon that changes a lot!

GreeBo

superhooper wrote: »

In the case of the Golfer he could have used a wedge. Over the years as a non regular golfer I have taken decisions like this especially close to car parks etc. I would just play more conservatively-use less club.

Thats your choice though, if thats going to make someone more or less liable then its a big can of worms.

cairny wrote: »

He didn't shout fore, whether or not this would have prevented the accident is debatable as you've pointed out. What it did however was allow the Judge to find against him without creating the dangerous precedent your refer to, which would be akin to imposing strict liability on all golfers.

Its still a precedent, now if you dont shout FORE you can be found liable/negligent. Surely thats a precedent?

PARlance wrote: »

If you're looking for an analogy then forget about stopping room, the guy was driving with his eyes closed.

if you want to keep stretching that analogy, the other car was driving behind a tree at the time it stopped :rolleyes:

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

Insurance like what? I have health insurance that covers me if I get injured etc. Do you know what insurance she has to state that hers doesnt cover her?
My car insurance does have a health aspect, I'd use it if I wrapped my car
around a tree for example. Otherwise how do you think people are covered for injuries?



I dont think anyone mentioned Health & Safety? Neither were employees so not relevant as you say.
There is an equal likelihood of danger from pretty much any full shot you hit on a golf course, I dont think your duty of care extends beyond shouting FORE when your ball can possibly hit someone.

Her case seems to be heavily weighted towards the mental anguish side of things, if thats the case couldnt I sue you if you hit me while Im playing (rather than spectating on the balcony)? I reckon that changes a lot!

She had health insurance, I've made that point earlier to you, VHI are getting 60k back. That covers medical exps only not anything else, not pain and suffering not any other related expense, loss of earnings etc.

if you wrap your car you can't claim for injuries from our own policy save for some minor benefits for medical expenses on some policies, some have them but they're so minuscule that hardly anyone bothers to claim for them.

Healy and Safety was mentioned, in fact someone quoted a whole section of the Act. People really have the wrong end of the stick on this one.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

Its still a precedent, now if you dont shout FORE you can be found liable/negligent. Surely thats a

That was always the case, nothing new created. The important word in your sentence is 'can'. It's possible to be found negligent but not automatic.

Negligence is a breach of duty of care, not exactly carelessness but near as dammit, it can be careless not to shout fore, surely you accept that?

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

if you want to keep stretching that analogy, the other car was driving behind a tree at the time it stopped :rolleyes:

Your ignorance of how these things work is cause for rollie pollie eyes.

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

She had health insurance, I've made that point earlier to you, VHI are getting 60k back. That covers medical exps only not anything else, not pain and suffering not any other related expense, loss of earnings etc.

if you wrap your car you can't claim for injuries from our own policy save for some minor benefits for medical expenses on some policies, some have them but they're so minuscule that hardly anyone bothers to claim for them.

Healy and Safety was mentioned, in fact someone quoted a whole section of the Act. People really have the wrong end of the stick on this one.

Right, I dont think she is entitled to anything more than compensation for the expense of her injuries.
Would she be entitled if she was a golfer on an adjacent fairway and didnt hear a shout of FORE? Again I think not. If you are on a balcony of a golf club you are in the grounds and there is a chance, however remote that you get hit by a ball.

Now if she was walking past the course and was hit its a totally different scenario.

If you wrap your car the health cover on your car insurance might not be much, but your regular health insurance will cover it (assuming you have some!)

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, I dont think she is entitled to anything more than compensation for the expense of her injuries.
Would she be entitled if she was a golfer on an adjacent fairway and didnt hear a shout of FORE? Again I think not. If you are on a balcony of a golf club you are in the grounds and there is a chance, however remote that you get hit by a ball.

Now if she was walking past the course and was hit its a totally different scenario.

If you wrap your car the health cover on your car insurance might not be much, but your regular health insurance will cover it (assuming you have some!)

In order for the above scenario to be applied you'll need to run for election, rise to ministerial level, propose a constitutional amemndment and get it passed.

Your regular health insurance won't cover your time of work etc, so let's hope you don't have a mortgage or anything.

As things stand the balcony person will probably succeed before the person walking by but as I've said before every case is different so what iffery is not very helpful.

Dr_Colossus

GreeBo wrote: »

Insurance like what? I have health insurance that covers me if I get injured etc. Do you know what insurance she has to state that hers doesnt cover her?
My car insurance does have a health aspect, I'd use it if I wrapped my car
around a tree for example. Otherwise how do you think people are covered for injuries?

cairny wrote: »

She had health insurance, I've made that point earlier to you, VHI are getting 60k back. That covers medical exps only not anything else, not pain and suffering not any other related expense, loss of earnings etc.

if you wrap your car you can't claim for injuries from our own policy save for some minor benefits for medical expenses on some policies, some have them but they're so minuscule that hardly anyone bothers to claim for them.
.

+1 to cairny's post above, insurance and policy holders cover if very fickle. In relation to car insurance there was that story during the storm in Feb where a tree fell on a van driver in Dublin causing catastrophic injuries with crushed vertebrate and other life changing disabilities. He had fully comprehensive insurance on the relatively new van but his insurance only covered the replacement value of the vehicle, it did not cover his personal injuries for which he had no health insurance nor did it cover his loss or future loss of earnings. Alternatively if someone had driven into him causing similar injuries he would have been compensated by claiming on their insurance policy. It's a terrible scenario and highlights the injustice often associated with insurance.

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

In order for the above scenario to be applied you'll need to run for election, rise to ministerial level, propose a constitutional amemndment and get it passed.

Your regular health insurance won't cover your time of work etc, so let's hope you don't have a mortgage or anything.

As things stand the balcony person will probably succeed before the person walking by but as I've said before every case is different so what iffery is not very helpful.

Every job I have ever had both my pension and health insurance would cover me for time off work.
My life assurance would cover the mortgage payments.

Maybe you need a new employer?!

Why do you think the person walking would be less likely to win a case??

GreeBo

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

+1 to cairny's post above, insurance and policy holders cover if very fickle. In relation to car insurance there was that story during the storm in Feb where a tree fell on a van driver in Dublin causing catastrophic injuries with crushed vertebrate and other life changing disabilities. He had fully comprehensive insurance on the relatively new van but his insurance only covered the replacement value of the vehicle, it did not cover his personal injuries for which he had no health insurance nor did it cover his loss or future loss of earnings. Alternatively if someone had driven into him causing similar injuries he would have been compensated by claiming on their insurance policy. It's a terrible scenario and highlights the injustice often associated with insurance.

You can't just label all insurance bad and then give a specific car insurance case. Health cover is usually an option on car insurance.
It's car insurance, not cover for everything insurance anyway.
I don't see the injustice, you get what you pay for with insurance.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

Every job I have ever had both my pension and health insurance would cover me for time off work.
My life assurance would cover the mortgage payments.

Maybe you need a new employer?!

Why do you think the person walking would be less likely to win a case??

Oh wow, there's no pointless avenue you want to leave unexplored is there:)

All of that is irrelevant, but..... life assurance only covers (pays off) mortgage if you croak afaik, you might be thinking of critical illness cover. Your pension is for when you retire not when you are off sick / injured. Your health insurance won't cover your loss of earnings.

I'm very happy with my employer, his only flaws are swing flaws.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

You can't just label all insurance bad and then give a specific car insurance case. Health cover is usually an option on car insurance.
It's car insurance, not cover for everything insurance anyway.
I don't see the injustice, you get what you pay for with insurance.

One of the best motor personal accident policies on the market offers a max payout of €12,700 and then only in certain circumstances. Loss of limb= 12,700, death= 12,700, loss of eye -12,700.

It's grossly insufficient and I've said before rarely claimed.

If you're relying on this for your run in with the tree I hope your airbags perform well.