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

1246

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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



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

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

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

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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »

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

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Insurance like what? I have health insurance that covers me if I get injured etc. Do you know what insurance she has to state that hers doesnt cover her?
    My car insurance does have a health aspect, I'd use it if I wrapped my car
    around a tree for example. Otherwise how do you think people are covered for injuries?
    cairny wrote: »
    She had health insurance, I've made that point earlier to you, VHI are getting 60k back. That covers medical exps only not anything else, not pain and suffering not any other related expense, loss of earnings etc.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

    Maybe you need a new employer?!

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


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


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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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

    Maybe you need a new employer?!

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

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

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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Dtoffee


    GreeBo wrote: »
    .you get what you pay for with insurance.

    Sorry but I cant agree with that logic.

    Have you had to make a claim recently? talk about avoiding paying out, these companies are experts at minimising their pay out with tactics like 'delay, deny, defend' or we are going to apply 'the law of average' (google those words) and now they are using their own computer generated quotes with their own fixed costings that bare no comparison to actual market costs.

    Call your home insurer and ask are you 'fully' covered for a fire if you have left the house with the TV / Washing Machine / Dryer / Dishwasher on and one of them caused the fire? .... even better, email them and get it in writing. Insurance is now a minefield and paying a large premium is no guarantee of a no quibble pay out.

    For what its worth, I think our lady golfer has guilded the lily somewhat but theres no denying she was injured .... you gotta love people who massage their ego's by posting their photos for the world to see :rolleyes:


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


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

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

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

    Unsurprisingly perhaps your employer isn't that up on the pension and life assurance options so.

    Your pension turns into a life assurance policy with you getting an annuity.
    Mine also has illness cover, and so do all that I am aware of.
    pension and health insurance when provided by an employer are often tied together, you can also cash in some pension early if required.
    My health insurance does cover for kids of earnings, pays out lump sums if required.

    This is now way of topic, suffice to say there are lots of different options out there, check then before you dismiss them.


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


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

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

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

    Again, it's a car policy, it's not designed to cover you and your injuries, that's what health insurance is for!
    Your health insurance will claim on the health part of the car insurance for double indemnity reasons.


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


    Dtoffee wrote: »
    Sorry but I cant agree with that logic.

    Have you had to make a claim recently? talk about avoiding paying out, these companies are experts at minimising their pay out with tactics like 'delay, deny, defend' or we are going to apply 'the law of average' (google those words) and now they are using their own computer generated quotes with their own fixed costings that bare no comparison to actual market costs.

    Call your home insurer and ask are you 'fully' covered for a fire if you have left the house with the TV / Washing Machine / Dryer / Dishwasher on and one of them caused the fire? .... even better, email them and get it in writing. Insurance is now a minefield and paying a large premium is no guarantee of a no quibble pay out.

    For what its worth, I think our lady golfer has guilded the lily somewhat but theres no denying she was injured .... you gotta love people who massage their ego's by posting their photos for the world to see :rolleyes:



    I've made lots of claims on different policies and never had an issue, you get what you pay for as I said.
    Of course they will avoid paying out of they can avoid it, they are a business.
    If they can avoid paying it means you didn't get the right policy or worse, failed to understand it and what it covered under what circumstances.

    At this point we are way way off the original topic!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Unsurprisingly perhaps your employer isn't that up on the pension and life assurance options so.

    Your pension turns into a life assurance policy with you getting an annuity.
    Mine also has illness cover, and so do all that I am aware of.
    pension and health insurance when provided by an employer are often tied together, you can also cash in some pension early if required.
    My health insurance does cover for kids of earnings, pays out lump sums if required.

    This is now way of topic, suffice to say there are lots of different options out there, check then before you dismiss them.[/QUOTE

    I didn't dismiss anything, you've brought up these as policies that should respond in cases like the lady here, they are benefit policies, a court can't take them into account when dealing with a civil action. People tend to take out the best benefit insurance they can afford, saying someone should have bought better insurance is akin to saying let them eat cake.

    Not all pensions have illness cover, well again there's some limited stuff but it's like the car policy benefits, not what it's designed for and not very useful.

    You can't take something off topic and then say woah this is off topic, I've only answered the stuff you brought up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Again, it's a car policy, it's not designed to cover you and your injuries, that's what health insurance is for!
    Your health insurance will claim on the health part of the car insurance for double indemnity reasons.

    My car insurance does have a health aspect, I'd use it if I wrapped my car
    around a tree for example. Otherwise how do you think people are covered for injuries?

    At least you've learned something in the last few hours :-P


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


    cairny wrote: »

    I didn't dismiss anything, you've brought up these as policies that should respond in cases like the lady here, they are benefit policies, a court can't take them into account when dealing with a civil action. People tend to take out the best benefit insurance they can afford, saying someone should have bought better insurance is akin to saying let them eat cake.

    Not all pensions have illness cover, well again there's some limited stuff but it's like the car policy benefits, not what it's designed for and not very useful.

    You can't take something off topic and then say woah this is off topic, I've only answered the stuff you brought up.
    I didn't say the court should take them into account, I was responding to the question of who should pay for her injuries. In this instance I think that her insurance should.

    Not being and to afford something isn't really relevant, however harsh that may seem. If you can't afford insurance then you take the risk when something goes wrong.

    I'm saying it's off topic so you should stop bringing it up, no other reason.
    cairny wrote: »
    My car insurance does have a health aspect, I'd use it if I wrapped my car
    around a tree for example. Otherwise how do you think people are covered for injuries?

    At least you've learned something in the last few hours :-P
    I have honestly no idea what you are talking about here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I didn't say the court should take them into account, I was responding to the question of who should pay for her injuries. In this instance I think that her insurance should.

    No the culpable party pays. Whether or not you like it that's the way it is. You've brought up her insurance over and over again, I've explained why it's not appropriate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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


    I was on about your earlier post, you're contradicting yourself.


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


    cairny wrote: »
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I didn't say the court should take them into account, I was responding to the question of who should pay for her injuries. In this instance I think that her insurance should.

    No the culpable party pays. Whether or not you like it that's the way it is. You've brought up her insurance over and over again, I've explained why it's not appropriate.

    I don't believe the golfer is to blame, or at least not 100%.
    Again, the reason her insurance was brought into it was in direct response to the question of who should pay for her health costs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    cairny wrote: »

    I don't believe the golfer is to blame, or at least not 100%.
    Again, the reason her insurance was brought into it was in direct response to the question of who should pay for her health costs.

    Ok you really can't keep putting 'again' in front of points when you're saying things for the first time :)

    You were the one who first brought up the issue of her insurance, it wasn't in response to a question about her health costs, you said something like her insurance should pay not the golfers and we've ended up in this spiral about what insurance is...Again I say her insurance would not be appropriate for this type of loss.

    With respect it doesn't matter that you don't believe the golfer was to blame, he was found liable, by not shouting fore he left himself open to that. We can agree that it was harsh, he certainly didn't intend it but nonetheless he has been found responsible hence his insurance pays for the consequential loss.


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


    cairny wrote: »

    With respect it doesn't matter that you don't believe the golfer was to blame, he was found liable, by not shouting fore he left himself open to that. We can agree that it was harsh, he certainly didn't intend it but nonetheless he has been found responsible hence his insurance pays for the consequential loss.

    This is the key. Insurance cover is a debate for another day. He has been found liable and this has potentially huge repercussions.


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


    cairny wrote: »
    GreeBo wrote: »

    Ok you really can't keep putting 'again' in front of points when you're saying things for the first time :)

    You were the one who first brought up the issue of her insurance, it wasn't in response to a question about her health costs, you said something like her insurance should pay not the golfers and we've ended up in this spiral about what insurance is...Again I say her insurance would not be appropriate for this type of loss.

    With respect it doesn't matter that you don't believe the golfer was to blame, he was found liable, by not shouting fore he left himself open to that. We can agree that it was harsh, he certainly didn't intend it but nonetheless he has been found responsible hence his insurance pays for the consequential loss.
    Post 109 is where I first explained why her insurance came into it, hence I used the word again when I explained why, again.

    I'm not saying it should compensate her for the loss she claims, it should cover her costs related to healthcare, assuming she had health insurance.

    Yeah he has been find responsible, so far, I happen to disagree, others do too.
    I think the whole point of having a discussion on a site like this is to discuss opinions about the ruling. If you don't want to partake in them that's fine, but you can't close the door on others having a different opinion to yours, otherwise why not just lock the thread after the first post?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    I am unveiling my soon to be ubiquitous on the golf courses of the world accessory exclusively to boards.ie tonight:

    Clip this little gizmo to your bag. Like the sensors in range tee machines, it hears the strike of clubhead on ball. Powerful speaker emits cry of 'Fore'* at 100db. Never be a risk of negligence on the golf course again. Hoping for a tie-in with a top pro (fingers crossed for Bubba) who will voice it.

    I will retire and buy Augusta National for myself on the proceeds.


    *Terms and Conditions Apply.
    Should gizmo fail to shout Fore, the supplier is not liable for any claim.
    Supplier is not liable for falloff in golf participation due to course noise polution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    cairny wrote: »
    Post 109 is where I first explained why her insurance came into it, hence I used the word again when I explained why, again.

    I'm not saying it should compensate her for the loss she claims, it should cover her costs related to healthcare, assuming she had health insurance.

    Yeah he has been find responsible, so far, I happen to disagree, others do too.
    I think the whole point of having a discussion on a site like this is to discuss opinions about the ruling. If you don't want to partake in them that's fine, but you can't close the door on others having a different opinion to yours, otherwise why not just lock the thread after the first post?

    Post 109 is where you incorrectly stated why her insurance first come into it.

    I've fully entered into a debate with you and others about the possible rationale behind the ruling. Your answer to it was 'her insurance should cover it'. I've tried to explain why that's not appropriate.

    When we exhausted that (completely) you went to just disagreeing that the golfer was responsible. That's a finishing point not an argument, if you have a logical reason why the judge erred then let's hear it but if it's limited to 'I disagree' then in that case I think it's reasonable to say that your opinion doesn't matter, being unsupported by argument.


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


    Cairny are you Justice Carney.:D

    GreeBo . I think you should let it go as there are plenty of other trolls on here you will have your day with.


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


    cairny wrote: »
    GreeBo wrote: »

    Post 109 is where you incorrectly stated why her insurance first come into it.

    I've fully entered into a debate with you and others about why the possible rationale behind the ruling. Your answer to it was 'her insurance should cover it'. I've tried to explain why that's not appropriate.

    When we exhausted that (completely) you went to just disagreeing that the golfer was responsible. That's a finishing point not an argument, if you have a logical reason why the judge erred then let's hear it but if it's limited to 'I disagree' then in that case I think it's reasonable to say that your opinion doesn't matter, being unsupported by argument.

    Please re read all my posts, at no point did I suggest that her insurance should have any bearing on the ruling or the judges decision, you brought that into the equation.
    It was to explain how her health costs would be covered., nothing else!
    I gave reasons and examples why he is not to blame in my opinion.
    I started by saying I didn't think he was responsible. You can go back pages and pages to one I'd my first posts to see that, it's the while resin I'm posting in this thread.

    Your definition of fully entering into a debate differs from mine somewhat.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    cairny wrote: »

    Please re read all my posts, at no point did I suggest that her insurance should have any bearing on the ruling or the judges decision, you brought that into the equation.
    It was to explain how her health costs would be covered., nothing else!
    I gave reasons and examples why he is not to blame in my opinion.
    I started by saying I didn't think he was responsible. You can go back pages and pages to one I'd my first posts to see that, it's the while resin I'm posting in this thread.

    Your definition of fully entering into a debate differs from mine somewhat.

    Read posts 60 & 77


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


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm not saying it should compensate her for the loss she claims, it should cover her costs related to healthcare, assuming she had health insurance.
    Do I take it you don't agree with the settlement amount of €274k and think it's far too high? Personally I think it's reasonable when you take the existing medical costs of €60k into account, future medical expenses plus future loss of earnings if her stroke means she can't return to work. The case report didn't state if or what she was working at but at only 56 she has a numbers of years until retirement so a debilitating injury would have an effect on the compensation amount.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Yeah he has been find responsible, so far, I happen to disagree, others do too.
    I think the whole point of having a discussion on a site like this is to discuss opinions about the ruling. If you don't want to partake in them that's fine, but you can't close the door on others having a different opinion to yours, otherwise why not just lock the thread after the first post?

    I also disagree with the verdict that the golfer was found responsible and especially if it turns out personally liable for the settlement amount if his Golfsure insurance doesn't cover the claim. That might be more appropriate if she was struck while playing on the course but in the case of being struck while on the balcony of the clubhouse then the club and course/clubhouse architect are most responsible.


Advertisement