Golfer awarded near 300k in damages for incident

TheDoc

Not sure if anyone read of heard this, I caught it briefly on newstalk but a few online distributions are running the story.

A woman has been awarded 300k in damages, after she had a stroke a few days after being struck with a golf ball.

The ruling was made today, where the judge ruled negligence on the other golfers side, for not calling "fore".

Now where this story get's incredible, is that the golfer in question is a low handicaper and all looked well as the ball approached the green. Or so he thought.

The ball shot over the green and struck the woman. No fore was called, as he thought the ball was heading towards the pin. It was described by witness' as a freak accident, and interestingly none of the mans playing partners called fore, or saw any need to call fore.

Have to say this sets a very dangerous precedent and raises REAL questions about how vulnerable we are now in an age of sueing for damages. I've every sympathy with this lady who has gone through an ordeal no doubt, but surely in golf, as with any sport, there is liability and acceptance on the participants part there is injury and dangers with the game.

I'm hopeful that there is some clarity on this story as the days pass, but I've contacted my club to have them monitor this situation and raise it at at GUI level for clarification. As our club would be VERY exposed to this, and I've often seen balls overhit the green on of final hole going towards the practice area or car park.

Genuinely disturbed at this. I got struck in the lower back by a ball hit from a driver as a late teen. There was some fog out on the day, and the player behind felt it was safe to proceed and fired away. He felt no need to call fore as he didn't know we were still walking towards the green. I'll have to deal with lower back pain all my life from it and the impact it had to my spine, and had to hang up my football boots due to constant hamstring trouble from it. But a) I appreciated it was an accident and didn't go hunting for €€€€ and b) I would never in a million years thought someone could be liable in this instance.

http://newstalk.ie/reader/47.301.341/29510/0/

"Dashed her dreams of travelling the world playing the game she loved" " Has her fearful to play golf again". ugh I'll avoid moderator intervention by not saying my feelings about those comments.

Since the case if concluded I assume its fine to discuss here aslong as there isn't any breach of charter. Does anyone play in this club in Wicklow and know what happened here. Was it like a mad shank or did he catch a flyer?

cairny

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90604423

Some more details in this thread.

ForeRight

"I loved playing golf and the club and the interaction and the social evenings. I tried to play golf four or five tines afterwards but when somebody shouted fore I threw another lady in front of me. I realised my fear was too big,” she added.

That's a quote from the trial.



She was taken to Vincent's when the incident happened but a scan gave her the all clear initially.

8 days later she felt unwell and went back to Vincent's where they told her she had a stroke....

Answer me this....

How did her legal team prove the stroke was as result of the ball strike considering the initial scan was clear?

cairny

ForeRight wrote: »

"I loved playing golf and the club and the interaction and the social evenings. I tried to play golf four or five tines afterwards but when somebody shouted fore I threw another lady in front of me. I realised my fear was too big,” she added.

That's a quote from the trial.



She was taken to Vincent's when the incident happened but a scan gave her the all clear initially.

8 days later she felt unwell and went back to Vincent's where they told her she had a stroke....

Answer me this....

How did her legal team prove the stroke was as result of the ball strike considering the initial scan was clear?

Scans for stroke not definitive (recent family experience in this area, all good now:). Civil case so just have to prove it on the balance or probabilities, ie more likely than not. Serious blow to the head a few days beforehand means she'll get benefit of the doubt, probably rightly so.

rrpc

More important question: Would shouting 'Fore' absolve you of liability?

popepaisley1

i take it that the guy who hit the ball had no insurance. i presume it would have been settled out of court if he had

SnowDrifts

rrpc wrote: »

More important question: Would shouting 'Fore' absolve you of liability?

Indeed it would.

popepaisley1 wrote: »

i take it that the guy who hit the ball had no insurance. i presume it would have been settled out of court if he had

He was insured. I'm not sure would general GUI insurance cover this or whether he has addition cover....

copacetic

TheDoc wrote: »

Not sure if anyone read of heard this, I caught it briefly on newstalk but a few online distributions are running the story.

A woman has been awarded 300k in damages, after she had a stroke a few days after being struck with a golf ball.

The ruling was made today, where the judge ruled negligence on the other golfers side, for not calling "fore".

Now where this story get's incredible, is that the golfer in question is a low handicaper and all looked well as the ball approached the green. Or so he thought.

The ball shot over the green and struck the woman. No fore was called, as he thought the ball was heading towards the pin. It was described by witness' as a freak accident, and interestingly none of the mans playing partners called fore, or saw any need to call fore.

Have to say this sets a very dangerous precedent and raises REAL questions about how vulnerable we are now in an age of sueing for damages. I've every sympathy with this lady who has gone through an ordeal no doubt, but surely in golf, as with any sport, there is liability and acceptance on the participants part there is injury and dangers with the game.

I'm hopeful that there is some clarity on this story as the days pass, but I've contacted my club to have them monitor this situation and raise it at at GUI level for clarification. As our club would be VERY exposed to this, and I've often seen balls overhit the green on of final hole going towards the practice area or car park.

Genuinely disturbed at this. I got struck in the lower back by a ball hit from a driver as a late teen. There was some fog out on the day, and the player behind felt it was safe to proceed and fired away. He felt no need to call fore as he didn't know we were still walking towards the green. I'll have to deal with lower back pain all my life from it and the impact it had to my spine, and had to hang up my football boots due to constant hamstring trouble from it. But a) I appreciated it was an accident and didn't go hunting for €€€€ and b) I would never in a million years thought someone could be liable in this instance.

http://newstalk.ie/reader/47.301.341/29510/0/

"Dashed her dreams of travelling the world playing the game she loved" " Has her fearful to play golf again". ugh I'll avoid moderator intervention by not saying my feelings about those comments.

Since the case if concluded I assume its fine to discuss here aslong as there isn't any breach of charter. Does anyone play in this club in Wicklow and know what happened here. Was it like a mad shank or did he catch a flyer?

She wasn't just over the green, or even on the course she was on the clubhouse balcony so I'm not sure how she could have accepted liability or the potential to be skulled by a gold ball? She want a participant at all really at the time she was hit.

unattendedbag

I paid the €20 gui insurance at the start of the year and was assured it covers me in the event of a case like this. If this is the case then Gui insurance should be made compulsory for all members. Even a surcharge should be mandatory for visitors or tourists to cover them too.

On the fore topic, you can shout as loud as you want but plenty people still don't hear or even worse turn and face you rather than cover their heads so I doubt shouting fore absolves you of all liability.

spacecoyote

The balcony there does face out to the green from the left as you approach, but it wouldn't be on the line you would attack the flag from, from any angle if my memory serves me correctly, so I don't really buy the player who hit the balls explanation that he saw it going straight at the pin. I really can't see how you could possibly hit on the line of the balcony there & not let out a shout of fore. does sound like he was at fault.

popepaisley1

unattendedbag wrote: »

On the fore topic, you can shout as loud as you want but plenty people still don't hear or even worse turn and face you rather than cover their heads so I doubt shouting fore absolves you of all liability.

it probably doesnt clear you of all liability but part of your 'duty of care' is at the bare minimum to at least shout 'fore'.

Manach

Offhand, as a poster mentioned there is measure of duty of care - but at the end of the day, golf balls are a known hazard on and around a course. That and the causal relationship between the ball strike and the stroke could be grounds for an appeal.

tayto lover

It is because of an accident at my own course, Greenore, Co. Louth, that golfing insurance is compulsory. A Turkish sailor came onto the course and was hit by a ball while sitting on a bench. He lost an eye. He had no permission to be there as he was not a member or had not signed in but still won his case.

There are plenty of golfing accidents and awards too.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ten-people-lost-an-eye-in-golfing-accidents-26454536.html

SaveOurLyric

Moral off the story is make sure you buy insurance. Effectively a forced donation to the leeches in legal profession, but they have you by the short and.

GreeBo

I don't think it's compulsory...certainly I've never been asked to prove I have it.
The judge specifically said he was negligent in not shouting fore do it does have a bearing.
Interesting that her husband didn't shout fore either though.

I also wonder is part of the reason she doesn't play anymore down to a difficulty in finding somewhere to join now?

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

I also wonder is part of the reason she doesn't play anymore down to a difficulty in finding somewhere to join now?

Whoof ! Defamation ?

fullstop

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Whoof ! Defamation ?

Hardly, he just said he wonders is that the reason.

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Whoof ! Defamation ?

FixdePitchmark

I think people are being a bit harsh on this case.

When you think you have actual fraudulent claims. This had very serious consequences for the individual. I'd have to see where the shot was taken from - but it would have to be a wayward shot at best to hit a clubhouse if at side ?

If in doubt shout fore.

I think people going on about claim culture here are way off the mark. If somebody is genuinely injured - insurance should be there for that.

So - good point by TheDoc - we will have to clear up how we are covered for this - or how we do get covered.

It is very harsh that the individual in this case - seems to be meeting damages - is that the case.

cairny

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think people are being a bit harsh on this case.

When you think you have actual fraudulent claims. This had very serious consequences for the individual. I'd have to see where the shot was taken from - but it would have to be a wayward shot at best to hit a clubhouse if at side ?

If in doubt shout fore.

I think people going on about claim culture here are way off the mark. If somebody is genuinely injured - insurance should be there for that.

So - good point by TheDoc - we will have to clear up how we are covered for this - or how we do get covered.

It is very harsh that the individual in this case - seems to be meeting damages - is that the case.

No he was insured.

If you have a home insurance policy then you probably have personal negligence cover and it would cover a loss like this.

FixdePitchmark

cairny wrote: »

No he was insured.

If you have a home insurance policy then you probably have personal negligence cover and it would cover a loss like this.

Well if he was insured - what is the issue ?

You have lads crashing into people for fraudulent claims.
You have lads claiming long term side effects that don't have them.
You have deliberate damage to property.

I had an incident that I could have claimed and didn't.

But - when somebody has a stroke :eek:

SnowDrifts

From what I have heard, the judgment was focused on the negligent act of not calling "fore" when the consequences were reasonable foreseeable. The ruling should be up on the court's website in the coming days so we shall see then.

cairny

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well if he was insured - what is the issue ?

You have lads crashing into people for fraudulent claims.
You have lads claiming long term side effects that don't have them.
You have deliberate damage to property.

I had an incident that I could have claimed and didn't.

But - when somebody has a stroke :eek:

I couldn't agree with you more, people seem to think this is the beginning of an appalling vista but in really it's no different to hundreds of public liability accidents that lead to litigation every year.

In simple terms if you injure someone you should expect to be accountable for the damage unless there's a very good reason why not.

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

I think I do.
Maybe I misunderstood your meaning though. I read it something along the lines of "I also wonder is part of the reason Dustin Johnson is not on tour these days anything to do with cocaine?".

What did you mean by your sentence ?

cairny

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Whats the difference between being hit by a golf ball, and being tackled on a football field and tearing cruciate ligaments ending your playing career ? Fault of the tackler in every case?
I would have though not. Its a risk you accept when you put yourself in the way of it.

A very good example of a scenario where's these a good reason for you not to be liable, the classic legal example used is for participants in a boxing match.

A court has to decide where the appropriate line is, here hitting a golf ball towards a balcony with someone on it was held to be negligent. Failing to shout a warning as best practice requires robbed him of his potential defence.

FixdePitchmark

cairny wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you more, people seem to think this is the beginning of an appalling vista but in really it's no different to hundreds of public liability accidents that lead to litigation every year.

In simple terms if you injure someone you should expect to be accountable for the damage unless there's a very good reason why not.

Well - I wouldn't think like that.

But - if the injury is serious, has long term impact , was negligence. Both parties insured.

There are more than enough - non claims to cover all genuine cases.

If one party is not insured -

I would make my own judgement on the level of negligence - the person / company track record. The impact on the person you are claiming against.

I too despise that culture - developed in US copied in UK and now Ireland of "Ambulance Chasers".

Also the Irish one "Should stick a claim in for that". "haaah haaa haah aha".

But this is way off the mark - for this one.

cairny

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well - I wouldn't think like that.

But - if the injury is serious, has long term impact , was negligence. Both parties insured.

There are more than enough - non claims to cover all genuine cases.

If one party is not insured -

I would make my own judgement on the level of negligence - the person / company track record. The impact on the person you are claiming against.

I too despise that culture - developed in US copied in UK and now Ireland of "Ambulance Chasers".

Also the Irish one "Should stick a claim in for that". "haaah haaa haah aha".

But this is way off the mark - for this one.

By held accountable I mean, in the vast majority of cases, an apology and no more, if however you change the course of someone's life then an apology will not be enough.

FixdePitchmark

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Whats the difference between being hit by a golf ball, and being tackled on a football field and tearing cruciate ligaments ending your playing career ? Fault of the tackler in every case?
I would have though not. Its a risk you accept when you put yourself in the way of it.

Well as was accepted in Court - sitting in a clubhouse is not taking part in golf - people's guards are down. They act as a restaurant / bar etc.

It is either poor design or a poor shot to hit a club house ?

It is possible to hit my club house - but to hit balcony you would need to be 4 clubs out.

If you were a member you would know that this is possible or has happened a good bit in the past.

FixdePitchmark

cairny wrote: »

By held accountable I mean, in the vast majority of cases, an apology and no more, if however you change the course of someone's life then an apology will not be enough.

I accept that.

But - people can also be - fraudulent and dishonest about the true impact - speaking generally here.

cairny

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I accept that.

But - people can also be - fraudulent and dishonest about the true impact - speaking generally here.

Not as much as before, legislation a few years ago changed things so that if you're found to be exaggerating your injuries then you get nothing, nada, zip and have to pay the other side's legal costs as well. Of course it still goes on but there's a risk now at least.

A New earth

Just to clarify, a member of the club told me last week that the man was hitting from over on the 1st fairway to the 18th green and the ball had to pass the clubhouse on the way (It overlooks the 18th green). The area where he hit from was later made out of bounds because of this incident

FixdePitchmark

A New earth wrote: »

Just to clarify, a member of the club told me last week that the man was hitting from over on the 1st fairway to the 18th green and the ball had to pass the clubhouse on the way (It overlooks the 18th green). The area where he hit from was later made out of bounds because of this incident

Would you have to hit over the clubhouse ?
Or be very close to it.

Thanks.
It puts a different angle on it

A New earth

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you have to hit over the clubhouse ?
Or be very close to it.

Thanks.
It puts a different angle on it

No not over it, the clubhouse would be in front of you to the left so if you hooked it you could hit it. My understanding though is that it was a somewhat blind shot with trees blocking his view of where ball was going.

golfwallah

rrpc wrote: »

More important question: Would shouting 'Fore' absolve you of liability?

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Indeed it would.

I wouldn't be so confident that calling fore would absolve liability.

Every case is different with regard to specific details, but this case in Scotland in 2011 resulted in damages being awarded, even though "fore" was called:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/sale-golfer-struck-in-eye-by-ball-875113

In that case damages of £400,000 were awarded 70% against the player and 30% against the club (because they had insufficient warning signs around where the incident happened and there were risks of stray balls striking people on an adjacent hole)

Lessons - for players, remember that safety comes first (even at risk of accusations of slow play), always call "fore" if there is any remote chance your ball could hit someone and always have insurance. For clubs, review your course and put up warning signs at places where there are real risks of accidental ball strikes.

As others have said, there are risks involved in golf - just make sure you (and your club, if you are on committee) get advice (e.g. from your insurance broker - in writing) and take all reasonable precautions. Won't eliminate the risks but, at least, you are doing as much as reasonably possible to mitigate against them.

spacecoyote

A New earth wrote: »

Just to clarify, a member of the club told me last week that the man was hitting from over on the 1st fairway to the 18th green and the ball had to pass the clubhouse on the way (It overlooks the 18th green). The area where he hit from was later made out of bounds because of this incident

Ah ok, that makes some sense. I must have played there after the incident as the whole left side was oob when I was there.

That's why I couldn't figure out how he could be hitting anywhere near the clubhouse.

Would still need to be offline to hit the balcony I would have thought & I think if you hit a ball unsighted & know you'll be crossing the line of the clubhouse you should be shouting fore

Dr_Colossus

Articles with a little additional information here, both practically the same:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/golfer-awarded-274k-after-she-was-hit-in-head-by-ball-30499997.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/woman-awarded-275-000-after-being-hit-in-head-by-golf-ball-1.1893777

It doesn't state what sort of insurance Mr Trundle had (Golfsure or house policy) and possibly more interestingly what the outcome would have been had he not been insured.
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. That said I think the club are partly liable due to the layout and design, no one standing on the balcony of a club house expects to be hit by a golf ball and if it was a slight possibility netting or some sort of protective barrier should have been in place.
I've played the course a few times and the 18th is a par 5 with out of bounds down the right which in turn incentives you to keep left towards the club house. Also the green is deeper than the commencement of the club house so a pull or hook shot left does have the possibly of hitting the club house especially if going for the green in two.

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think it's compulsory...certainly I've never been asked to prove I have it.
The judge specifically said he was negligent in not shouting fore do it does have a bearing.
Interesting that her husband didn't shout fore either though.

I also wonder is part of the reason she doesn't play anymore down to a difficulty in finding somewhere to join now?

Very unfair comment. I don't think the claimant is being difficult here and has undergone severe trauma and expense through no fault of her own. It's a very different case to the one taken against Hermitage Golf Club and it's handicap secretary a couple of years ago for defamation after the plaintiff had his handicap cut.

TheDoc

Just to clarify, while the case itself has some spurious elements and I have some personal opinions on the victim here, I'm more raising the discussion around liability, and more pertinent golf insurance.

I received confirmation last night that the man in this incident, was refused cover for this incident by his golfing insurance, AND the clubs public liability insurance, because the judge ruled him as "being negligent". This specific wording, frees up insurance companies from paying out a claim.

This incident has completley ruined a mans life, as he is now the sole bearer of the 300k in daamges, and will no doubt appeal this decision.

A golf club should have public liability insurance. This is to cover members of the public during their stay on the premises, in the case of a golf club, the course, clubhouse, carpark etc.

I've asked my club to clarify this matter, as there are scenarios on my course where you could easily have a loss of perception with a shot, not call fore, hit someone, and have your life ruined.

I'm not in anyway being over dramatic about this, as someone who has being hit with a golf ball and left with lifetime impact of the hit. This set's a dangerous precedent.

I'd have serious issues in this instance, as the man had been labelled negligible, when in reality what has happened is a legal ruling deeming you liable for personal damages, from being unable to have 100% perception of a balls final resting point, during every shot.

TheDoc

copacetic wrote: »

She wasn't just over the green, or even on the course she was on the clubhouse balcony so I'm not sure how she could have accepted liability or the potential to be skulled by a gold ball? She want a participant at all really at the time she was hit.

I'm not familiar with this course. But witness' testfying in defense of the man indicated their initial reaction to the shot was to provide the customed "good shot" and "good strike" and all parties in the playing group believed the ball to be travelling towards the green.

It was with total suprise and shock the ball reached the woman.

My course has our clubhouse directly behind the 18th green. Our old clubhouse was even closer and flyers would hit the balcony on occasion. There has been instances in our course of people overhitting the 18th purely by accident obviously, but without injury. There has also been instances of people hooking drives of the 13th and balls going into the carpark, or in one case, hitting the roof of the clubhouse.

I know personally last year I caught a flyer on the 18th and the ball went over the green and onto the edges of the practice green. People out viewing on the balcony called fore thankfully. I didn't, because it looked destined for the green, and I wouldn't normally assosiated my 3 wood to travel that distance, from the rough.

There is also a large amount of courses in Dublin that have carparks or clubhouses relatively close to the finishing hole where spectators gather or patrons of the bar viewing.

So while I'm not familiar with the course, the indication I've gotten from this discussion on other platforms, is that while it was a freak accident, its not like he hit a mental shank. The indication was that it was a flyer and no cause of concern until the woman was actually struck.

TheDoc

popepaisley1 wrote: »

i take it that the guy who hit the ball had no insurance. i presume it would have been settled out of court if he had

He had GUI golfing insurance, and EVERY golf club HAS TO HAVE public liability insurance to operate.

SnowDrifts wrote: »

He was insured. I'm not sure would general GUI insurance cover this or whether he has addition cover....

He did have insurance. Both the GUI insurance underwritter, and the golf clubs public liability insurer, refused to pay the claim because he was deemed "negligent" by not shouting fore.

This is the reason why I'm bringing this to the attention of my clubs committee, to receive clarity on an issue like this, and if I am deemed negligent for not being able to predict the final ball position in a freak accident or shot.

unattendedbag wrote: »

I paid the €20 gui insurance at the start of the year and was assured it covers me in the event of a case like this. If this is the case then Gui insurance should be made compulsory for all members. Even a surcharge should be mandatory for visitors or tourists to cover them too.

On the fore topic, you can shout as loud as you want but plenty people still don't hear or even worse turn and face you rather than cover their heads so I doubt shouting fore absolves you of all liability.

This case for me indicates that you are not blanket covered for instances like this, as with anything, if you are deemed to be negligent, an insurer will more then likely get out of a payout.

TheDoc

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Very unfair comment. I don't think the claimant is being difficult here and has undergone severe trauma and expense through no fault of her own. It's a very different case to the one taken against Hermitage Golf Club and it's handicap secretary a couple of years ago for defamation after the plaintiff had his handicap cut.

I think it's best avoiding discussing the woman in this case, as it will only go to derail the main topic of discussion. However when you read her impact statement, I don't think you need to think to hard to draw conclusions about the motive here.

Be surprised if this doesn't gain major talking time around club committees and the GUI, and I'm sure it won't be long before seeing everyone having to sign a waiver before beginning a round of golf, which is a sad state of affairs, but unfortunately with the growing culture of sueing, and people seeking personal damages well beyond what can be considered rational renumeration, best that everyone covers their own arses.

cairny

TheDoc wrote: »

Just to clarify, while the case itself has some spurious elements and I have some personal opinions on the victim here, I'm more raising the discussion around liability, and more pertinent golf insurance.

I received confirmation last night that the man in this incident, was refused cover for this incident by his golfing insurance, AND the clubs public liability insurance, because the judge ruled him as "being negligent". This specific wording, frees up insurance companies from paying out a claim.

This incident has completley ruined a mans life, as he is now the sole bearer of the 300k in daamges, and will no doubt appeal this decision.

A golf club should have public liability insurance. This is to cover members of the public during their stay on the premises, in the case of a golf club, the course, clubhouse, carpark etc.

I've asked my club to clarify this matter, as there are scenarios on my course where you could easily have a loss of perception with a shot, not call fore, hit someone, and have your life ruined.

I'm not in anyway being over dramatic about this, as someone who has being hit with a golf ball and left with lifetime impact of the hit. This set's a dangerous precedent.

I'd have serious issues in this instance, as the man had been labelled negligible, when in reality what has happened is a legal ruling deeming you liable for personal damages, from being unable to have 100% perception of a balls final resting point, during every shot.

Where are you getting this? He was insured, the judge criticised his insurance company for using private detectives and for suggesting hse was exaggerating her injuries, clearly they were running the defence.

Insurance covers one's negligence, it is not a reason for cover to be declined, it is the very reason cover is taken out. Insurers can decline cover for deliberate acts but not negligence.

The Golf club did have insurance, they were sued as well, they were not liable as they had done nothing wrong.

You are being dramatic. It was just an accident like countless others, a nasty one granted but still an accident. Insurance company is (correctly in my view) ordered to pay the victim and everybody moves on as best they can.

It does not change the landscape for golf clubs one iota I believe.

Dr_Colossus

TheDoc wrote: »

I received confirmation last night that the man in this incident, was refused cover for this incident by his golfing insurance, AND the clubs public liability insurance, because the judge ruled him as "being negligent". This specific wording, frees up insurance companies from paying out a claim.

This incident has completley ruined a mans life, as he is now the sole bearer of the 300k in daamges, and will no doubt appeal this decision.

Wow, this is news and really frightening (why no mention of it in either article in the national newspapers). Typical insurers looking for any loophole to renege on policy holders.
Going to have to go to appeal if "being negligent" has such a bearing on the defendant. Life ruining verdict is right if insurers are indeed defaulting on cover due to this. Surely the judge should have been aware of the impact such wording would have had?

I wonder why aren't touring pro's not deemed negligent for not shouting Fore in big tournaments when blatantly hitting towards the crowds.

TheDoc wrote: »

A golf club should have public liability insurance. This is to cover members of the public during their stay on the premises, in the case of a golf club, the course, clubhouse, carpark etc.

I understood that part of the issue regarding the club's public liability in this case in that the plaintiff was a member of said club and thus not a general member of the public? If she'd been a guest or visitor the club's public liability insurance would have covered the claim?

Needs to be a lot more discussion and information regarding this case as it's bound to affect us all either with further increased costs or resulting in waiver signers as said or automatic shouts of Fore after every single shot.

SnowDrifts

TheDoc wrote: »

He did have insurance. Both the GUI insurance underwritter, and the golf clubs public liability insurer, refused to pay the claim because he was deemed "negligent" by not shouting fore.

This hasn't been reported in any article I read. As I said above, the ruling will be available on the court's website over the next few days so we will have a clearer picture then.

GreeBo

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Very unfair comment. I don't think the claimant is being difficult here and has undergone severe trauma and expense through no fault of her own. It's a very different case to the one taken against Hermitage Golf Club and it's handicap secretary a couple of years ago for defamation after the plaintiff had his handicap cut.

Whats unfair about it? I think its a perfectly justified thought. Her initial reaction was to try to sue her own club. Typically that doesnt endear a member to the rest of the membership.

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not familiar with this course. But witness' testfying in defense of the man indicated their initial reaction to the shot was to provide the customed "good shot" and "good strike" and all parties in the playing group believed the ball to be travelling towards the green.

It was with total suprise and shock the ball reached the woman.

It also begs the question as to why her husband didnt shout fore?
I've hit my own clubhouse a few times, and the car park and the main road nearby. Freak accidents are just that, freaks.

TheDoc wrote: »

Just to clarify, while the case itself has some spurious elements and I have some personal opinions on the victim here, I'm more raising the discussion around liability, and more pertinent golf insurance.

I received confirmation last night that the man in this incident, was refused cover for this incident by his golfing insurance, AND the clubs public liability insurance, because the judge ruled him as "being negligent". This specific wording, frees up insurance companies from paying out a claim.

I'd have serious issues in this instance, as the man had been labelled negligible, when in reality what has happened is a legal ruling deeming you liable for personal damages, from being unable to have 100% perception of a balls final resting point, during every shot.

The likely outcome is that everyone shouts FORE after every shot, just in case.

TheDoc

SnowDrifts wrote: »

This hasn't been reported in any article I read. As I said above, the ruling will be available on the court's website over the next few days so we will have a clearer picture then.

From what I read and understand, the insurance deferred to wait until after the ruling, as they felt there might be a way out pf payment.


I didn't read any reports in regards the insurance company running the defence, so conflicting stuff here obviously. I was taking points from another platform where members of the club are discussing this issue, as the incident itself has been a talking point for a couple of years in the club.

And I don't see why a judge sees it as his business to comment on what the insurance company did in regards hiring investigators and questioning the womans validity. This is common practice, as insurance fraud is an all to common thing here. I don't get why the feel the need to make narrative on things totally outside of their influence and business.

I'd be furious with my insurer if they didn't fully investigate a claim I felt was questionable, as at the end of the day I'm the one left with the increased premium.

con___manx1

if your shouting four into a strong up wind the players ahead will never hear you.its happend me on a particular hole a few times.I havent heard 4 and nearly got skulled or other players have not heard me and i nearly skulled them.

TheDoc

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

I wonder why aren't touring pro's not deemed negligent for not shouting Fore in big tournaments when blatantly hitting towards the crowds..

Part of the terms and conditions of being a ticket holder, and entering an event, is you acknowledging potential injury while spectating the sport and you absolve all right to sue for personal injury or damages. It's in the T&C's for just about every sporting ticket purchase, that I'd say 99/100 people never bother reading.

Actually there was co-incidently discussion over the weekend from the commentary team how they dislike this new lazy attitude from tour pros that seems now common place, where they simply raise the club indicating where the ball might be going, or just expect the sighters behind to flag accordingly.

They made this comment after a player made a loud fore call, and they complimented him on what was a dieing practice on tour. They also commented how it gives the wrong impression to amateurs and younger players.

TheDoc

con___manx1 wrote: »

if your shouting four into a strong up wind the players ahead will never hear you.its happend me on a particular hole a few times.I havent heard 4 and nearly got skulled or other players have not heard me and i nearly skulled them.

I'd say in this case, if he did shout fore, there would have been no issue. There was playing partners with him who could verify.

So what's interesting is if he was playing on his own during practice, called fore, other party didn't hear it. How exactly does a judge rule here?

I was always under the impression "innocent until proven guilty". ?And I would have thought in this case there would have been STRONG emphasis on the womans part, to prove that the man knowingly knew the trajectory and final flight path of the ball, and negligently refused to call fore.

cairny

TheDoc wrote: »

From what I read and understand, the insurance deferred to wait until after the ruling, as they felt there might be a way out pf payment.


I didn't read any reports in regards the insurance company running the defence, so conflicting stuff here obviously. I was taking points from another platform where members of the club are discussing this issue, as the incident itself has been a talking point for a couple of years in the club.

And I don't see why a judge sees it as his business to comment on what the insurance company did in regards hiring investigators and questioning the womans validity. This is common practice, as insurance fraud is an all to common thing here. I don't get why the feel the need to make narrative on things totally outside of their influence and business.

I'd be furious with my insurer if they didn't fully investigate a claim I felt was questionable, as at the end of the day I'm the one left with the increased premium.

Exaggeration is a potential full defence in the sense that if you exaggerate then entire claim can be thrown out, judges can be critical where they feel a defendant is alleging this on spurious grounds, judge is perfectly entitled to take this view and can award aggravated damages in certain cases.

With respect your cover denied because of negligence comment cannot be correct, the only way an Insurer could deny cover here would be if the court found that the golfer had been guilty of a deliberate act.

cairny

TheDoc wrote: »

I'd say in this case, if he did shout fore, there would have been no issue. There was playing partners with him who could verify.

So what's interesting is if he was playing on his own during practice, called fore, other party didn't hear it. How exactly does a judge rule here?

I was always under the impression "innocent until proven guilty". ?And I would have thought in this case there would have been STRONG emphasis on the womans part, to prove that the man knowingly knew the trajectory and final flight path of the ball, and negligently refused to call fore.

Sorry if this seems like I'm arguing with you on everything but really you don't have a good handle on how these things work (to your credit I suppose for avoiding courts over the years

Innocent til proven guilty refers to criminal cases, ie the beyond reasonable doubt. Civil cases (compensation cases) are judged on the balance of probabilities, more likely than not, yes claimant has to prove their case but it's a lower critieria. Here the Judge found that as he was hitting towards the clubhouse he ought to have been aware of the potential danger.

TheDoc

cairny wrote: »

Sorry if this seems like I'm arguing with you on everything but really you don't have a good handle on how these things work (to your credit I suppose for avoiding courts over the years

Innocent til proven guilty refers to criminal cases, ie the beyond reasonable doubt. Civil cases (compensation cases) are judged on the balance of probabilities, more likely than not, yes claimant has to prove their case but it's a lower critieria. Here the Judge found that as he was hitting towards the clubhouse he ought to have been aware of the potential danger.

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.