Spectator hit by ball loses sight in one eye

slave1

I know there is a Ryder Cup thread but I think the severity of the injury to this unlucky soul deserves a dedicated thread, plus this will play out a lot longer than the RC itself which is now over....

Background 28.09.18




Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines - American golfer Brooks Koepka was left shaken after injuring a spectator when he hit her in the face with a wild tee shot on the first day of the Ryder Cup in France.

Koepka’s drive on the par-four sixth hole veered into the gallery on the left of the green and struck the woman.

Three-time major winner Koepka gave a signed glove to the woman, who received immediate medical attention before being taken to hospital.

Doctors have confirmed the injury is not serious.

Update Monday October 2nd

All over the news, female and looks like she will lose sight of eye and looking at litigation as she never heard "fore" from where she was standing...


A spectator hit by a Brooks Koepka tee shot at the Ryder Cup says she has lost sight in her right eye and is considering legal action, AFP reports.

The incident happened on the opening day of the event when the American's drive on the par-four sixth hole veered off course, striking 49-year-old Corine Remande, who had travelled from Egypt.

"Doctors told me I had lost the use of that eye," she told AFP.

Mrs Remande said the reason for legal action was to help cover medical bills.

She added: "It happened so fast, I didn't feel any pain when I was hit.

"I didn't feel like the ball had struck my eye and then I felt the blood start to pour. The scan on Friday confirmed a fracture of the right eye-socket and an explosion of the eyeball."
Mrs Remande also criticised the Paris tournament organisers for "not making contact" after the incident to find out how she was. She also claims there was "no warning shout from the course official when the ball was heading towards the crowd".

The spectator praised three-time major winner Koepka, who went over to see how she was. Mrs Remande said she downplayed the incident so that the golfer "would stay concentrated".

"It looked like it hurt," the 28-year-old said afterwards.

He added: "It's hard to control a golf ball, especially for 300 yards, and a lot of times the fans are close to the fairway.

"You can yell 'fore' but it doesn't matter from 300 yards, you can't hear it."

fred funk }{

Very unfortunate but that a load of bollocks about not hearing a shout from 300 yards.

super_furry

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Very unfortunate but that a load of bollocks about not hearing a shout from 300 yards.

Maybe on an empty golf course on a Sunday morning, but you're not going to hear someone shout from 300 yards away if you're in the middle of a huge crowd at the Ryder Cup.

hesker

slave1 wrote: »

"You can yell 'fore' but it doesn't matter from 300 yards, you can't hear it."

Sounds like he didn’t shout.

Dbu

Looking at it they did seem to shout fore and Koepka did hold his driver out left to indicate the direction.

Mind you shouting fore doesn't seem to hold much water in recent court cases.

martinkop

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Very unfortunate but that a load of bollocks about not hearing a shout from 300 yards.

He did shout FORE though, a few on the tee did.

SuperSean11

Is it not a potential risk you have to expect as a spectator?

Joe_ Public

Be surprised if there wasn’t some kind of disclaimer. Read loads of accounts of people suing for damages but they’re not normally as a result of spectating at big tournaments. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

eastie17

But he signed his glove and gave it to her, so that's ok then

What usually happens when people sue? I mean you know the risks if you are going to spectate

listermint

tbh, her medical bills should be covered. I would imagine most of you arguing about symantics in this thread would have a different personal viewpoint if i took your sight away in 1 eye today.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

tbh, her medical bills should be covered. I would imagine most of your arguing about symantics in this thread would have a different personal viewpoint if i took your sight away in 1 eye today.

Id agree with you on that, but if everyone who got hit started suing itd mean very reduced numbers being let in to events id imagine

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

Id agree with you on that, but if everyone who got hit started suing itd mean very reduced numbers being let in to events id imagine

As i said, long and short of it is, She has lost sight in an Eye. That is life changing.

Kevin Finnerty

Could we see the day where all fairways will be netted off?

kiers47

Deleted User wrote: »

Id agree with you on that, but if everyone who got hit started suing itd mean very reduced numbers being let in to events id imagine

Or in Ireland it would be jammed!!

Trampas

I’d be surprised if she wins a case. There’ll be a disclaimer I’d imagine otherwise there’ll be a case ever week as how many people get hit every week by a golf ball while watching.

No insurance company would cover it and if they did the premium be huge.

Only hope she has is if brook pays the bills

GreeBo

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Could we see the day where all fairways will be netted off?

Unless you are going to put a roof on that wont make any difference.

Mantis Toboggan

Very unfortunate case if she does lose her sight. There's no real solution for avoiding this in future. I do believe the tour should give a contribution towards her medical costs as a gesture of good will.

Trampas

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Very unfortunate case if she does lose her sight. There's no real solution for avoiding this in future. I do believe the tour should give a contribution towards her medical costs as a gesture of good will.

If they do that where do you draw the line?

begbysback

The money in golf is astronomical and supporters usually pay for it directly, through entry fees and such, or indirectly as advertisement targets.

They can afford insurance premiums in these cases, the woman deserves to be compensated for both medical fees and extras.

Also of note, I've been to baseball games on the US - amazed nobody has been killed!!

GreeBo

Every event should use 5% of ticket price as insurance fund, problem solved.

Mantis Toboggan

Trampas wrote: »

If they do that where do you draw the line?

Well it'll be a gesture of good will so it won't exactly set a precedence for future incidents.

Niles Crane

If Koepka has anything about him at all he'll pay her medical expenses it would be a drop in the ocean for him.

I would imagine you have a much much bigger risk being badly injured driving to and from the golf course than you would of getting injured being struck by a ball at a golf course.There were 250,000 at the tournament during the week and only 1 person was injured badly so the chances of this happening are extremely small so because of that I can't imagine this will cause much trouble for golf in the future.You take a risk like this going to sports all over the world baseball,hurling,cricket,tennis (stefan edberg hit a ball that killed an umpire once) as they all have balls flying around at fast speed that could cause injury.

Kevin Finnerty

GreeBo wrote: »

Every event should use 5% of ticket price as insurance fund, problem solved.

Nope. It sets a precedence. Leaves the door open ajar for huge compo claims down the line.

Fine the players who don't shout, substantially. After that the onus is on the spectator, as it is in this case imo.

prawnsambo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Well it'll be a gesture of good will so it won't exactly set a precedence for future incidents.

It would also be a tacit acceptance of responsibility and far harder to defend in court as a result.

listermint

Trampas wrote: »

If they do that where do you draw the line?

At physical loss i would assume. As with most things.

I recall my parents paying a school mandated insurance sub back in the day which had listed payouts on it. Loss of limbs and sight was on the form.

Why would a tournament who has duty of care to paying customers be absolved from covering medical bills if someone literally loses their sight at their event.

Madness. There is enough money to cover such scenarios.

Trampas

listermint wrote: »

At physical loss i would assume. As with most things.

I recall my parents paying a school mandated insurance sub back in the day which had listed payouts on it. Loss of limbs and sight was on the form.

Why would a tournament who has duty of care to paying customers be absolved from covering medical bills if someone literally loses their sight at their event.

Madness. There is enough money to cover such scenarios.

Remember people are standing in front of people hitting an object at speed in their direction. The person hitting the ball doesn’t intend to hit them but sometimes they do. Where’s the duty of care from the person to make sure they can’t be hit by standing behind the person. I’m just playing devils advocate. I just think it gets a legal mindfield.

Was it Watson who did aim at people this year or did I imagine that. Safe option.

GreeBo

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Nope. It sets a precedence. Leaves the door open ajar for huge compo claims down the line.

Fine the players who don't shout, substantially. After that the onus is on the spectator, as it is in this case imo.

Whats wrong with a precedence exactly?

Spurious claims would obviously be ignored.

Someone gets injured and has lifechanging injuries...whats wrong with using some of the tens of millions of prize money from each event to support them?

Yunno, spectators...the people who watch golf, the only reason there is so much money in golf?

Your attitude to spectators is frankly ghastly.

listermint

Trampas wrote: »

Remember people are standing in front of people hitting an object at speed in their direction. The person hitting the ball doesn’t intend to hit them but sometimes they do. Where’s the duty of care from the person to make sure they can’t be hit by standing behind the person. I’m just playing devils advocate. I just think it gets a legal mindfield.

Was it Watson who did aim at people this year or did I imagine that. Safe option.

Who said anyone intended to hit anyone ?

That is not what insurance in primary school was for , it was to cover medical costs in accidents scenarios for Injury.

GreeBo

Trampas wrote: »

Remember people are standing in front of people hitting an object at speed in their direction. The person hitting the ball doesn’t intend to hit them but sometimes they do. Where’s the duty of care from the person to make sure they can’t be hit by standing behind the person. I’m just playing devils advocate. I just think it gets a legal mindfield.

Was it Watson who did aim at people this year or did I imagine that. Safe option.

People driving cars dont mean to hit other people but they do, hence we have insurance. Not sure why this is any different tbh?

mickdw

She will get compensated and deserves to.
Organisers have a duty of care towards paying spectactors. Take a sport like formula one. It is often mentioned its a dangerous sport however competitors accept the risks, marshalls know the risk they take and accept it. A spectator on the other hand is entitled to presume that their safety is being looked after and in all cases everything is done to ensure that.
There must be significant areas for viewing where a pro golfer is never going to hit. Allowing people to line the fairway when there is a fair chance of the ball going off to the side is negligent imo.