Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Golfer awarded near 300k in damages for incident

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,133 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 552 ✭✭✭A New earth


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,684 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭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.


Advertisement