Stray shot

Killed

Interesting court case in Scotland over a stray tee shot. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/court-battle-over-golf-shot-that-took-out-players-eye-2896636.html

What gets me is the last part of the article where the injured golfer states

“It is common knowledge among golfers that it is the responsibility of the striker of the ball to satisfy himself that his shot cannot harm anyone.”

I've hit some right duffers and shanks in my time and how can you be sure that any shot you hit cannot harm anyone. I don't see that as being realistic.

staker

I was under the impression that if you shouted "Fore" you were not liable to any proceedings as a result of injury.

AldilaMan

staker wrote: »

I was under the impression that if you shouted "Fore" you were not liable to any proceedings as a result of injury.

If that was the case we wouldn't purchase insurance with our annual sub.

stockdam

I think it means that you should be "careful". If somebody is nearby then do not hit as you may shank the ball. If somebody is in range then you don't hit. However if you hit a wild shot then all you can do is shout fore; any golf shot (well amost any) has the potential to injure a 3rd party.

DoctaDee

stockdam wrote: »

I think it means that you should be "careful". If somebody is nearby then do not hit as you may shank the ball. If somebody is in range then you don't hit. However if you hit a wild shot then all you can do is shout fore; any golf shot (well amost any) has the potential to injure a 3rd party.

Yeah I totally agree with ya. Common sense in the 1st instance with regard to putting other golfers in peril as a result of bad decision. Also other golfers should also be aware of putting themselves in danger, walkin blindly onto adjoining fairways etc, also playing partners not advancing into the firing line of the shot being taken. You just can't legislate for a bad shot, speakin personally, as soon as I lose sight of my ball I'm shouting fore!

staker

AldilaMan wrote: »

If that was the case we wouldn't purchase insurance with our annual sub.

Exactly what I meant,seeing as he had an 18 handicap he must've had insurance.

The_Architect

Unfortunately, these cases sometimes look to turn liability on to the club who then look to pass it on to the architect for "unsafe design".

Safety in design has correctly become more important in the last 20 or 30 years. However, over compensation to protect against litigation can often be to the detriment of the golf course.

The old classics are just lucky that their architects are dead. Although the return argument would be that they could never have forseen the advances in equipment when they designed the course.

super_furry

Wouldn't the course be covered by public liability insurance?

DoctaDee

The_Architect wrote: »

..........The old classics are just lucky that their architects are dead. Although the return argument would be that they could never have forseen the advances in equipment when they designed the course.

Yup agreed, Old Course St. Andrews would never be designed today with the crossover holes as they are