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

1235

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    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.



    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.


    Ah I'm certain there's insurance here, don't think there's any chance of him being personally liable for the award, once the insurance company is involved, as they clearly have been in the defence of the case it's virtually impossible for them to get out of it.


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


    GreeBo wrote: »
    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!

    Are you attached to the insurance industry? you have avoided comment on the 'Delay,Deny,Defend' approach and the use of computer generated quotes (through the 'xactimate' programme). I have just offered some very good advice to everyone out there and you are right we are going off topic, but rest assured that its in a good cause. The fact is, you now have to fight to get what you paid for. I think the insurance industry has changed in the last five years and maybe your claims were not recent.

    Either way, I hope you never have to claim again and suggest you do check your policy fully covers any incidents caused by machines left on in an empty house.


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


    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.



    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.

    I guess I'm not even looking at the amount because I don't think he should be liable.
    I also don't know how you can value damage to quality of life, for example. If she somehow manages to play golf again, does she have to pay it back?
    If it was coming out of my pocket I'd be watching her closely from now on.


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


    Dtoffee wrote: »
    Are you attached to the insurance industry? you have avoided comment on the 'Delay,Deny,Defend' approach and the use of computer generated quotes (through the 'xactimate' programme). I have just offered some very good advice to everyone out there and you are right we are going off topic, but rest assured that its in a good cause. The fact is, you now have to fight to get what you paid for. I think the insurance industry has changed in the last five years and maybe your claims were not recent.

    Either way, I hope you never have to claim again and suggest you do check your policy fully covers any incidents caused by machines left on in an empty house.

    No I'm not, not that it's relevant at all to the discussion!
    I have agreed that of course a company will avoid paying out if they can, it's business after all.

    I've made recent medical claims into the thousands against my own policy for injuries that didn't involve anyone else, without issue.

    Tbh I'm kinda confused as to the point of your post...but agree it's totally off topic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I guess I'm not even looking at the amount because I don't think he should be liable.
    I also don't know how you can value damage to quality of life, for example. If she somehow manages to play golf again, does she have to pay it back?
    If it was coming out of my pocket I'd be watching her closely from now on.

    I'm afraid not, if they don't appeal then matter is finalised. There are some celebrated cases involving guys playing in the All Ireland series days after cases being settled. I agreed it's very unsatisfactory but I suppose there has to be a point be a line is drawn and people move on.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    I don't know if anyone has done this, but I had a look at Google Earth and (if I'm right about the location of the 18th green) then the shot would have to be 50 yards left of target to hit the balcony. Now I don't know how far this guy hits a nine iron (I hit it about 140-150 yards) but 50 yards left of line with a nine iron doesn't seem like something you'd not recognise as being more than a bit wayward.

    Not only is the club house in that line, but the carpark and what looks like a practice putting green. There are trees on the left that might block your view of the shot, but you would certainly know it's heading in the wrong direction where there are likely to be people.


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


    rrpc wrote: »
    I don't know if anyone has done this, but I had a look at Google Earth and (if I'm right about the location of the 18th green) then the shot would have to be 50 yards left of target to hit the balcony. Now I don't know how far this guy hits a nine iron (I hit it about 140-150 yards) but 50 yards left of line with a nine iron doesn't seem like something you'd not recognise as being more than a bit wayward.

    Not only is the club house in that line, but the carpark and what looks like a practice putting green. There are trees on the left that might block your view of the shot, but you would certainly know it's heading in the wrong direction where there are likely to be people.
    Wouldnt that totally depend on where he is playing the shot from?
    For example it wouldnt have to be offline at all if he was playing on a line where the flag is between himself and the balcony.


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


    cairny wrote: »
    I'm afraid not, if they don't appeal then matter is finalised. There are some celebrated cases involving guys playing in the All Ireland series days after cases being settled. I agreed it's very unsatisfactory but I suppose there has to be a point be a line is drawn and people move on.

    Why are there PI's hired by Insurance companies regarding fraud so?

    I reckon who ever pays out would/could take a case if they found out the lady was playing golf in Spain next month for example.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Why are there PI's hired by Insurance companies regarding fraud so?

    I reckon who ever pays out would/could take a case if they found out the lady was playing golf in Spain next month for example.

    They are hired before the trial, never after. They have become much more valuable in recent years as if you are found to be exaggerating your claim now you lose 100% of it and have to pay the other sides costs (10k a day in the High Court). Previously you would still succeed just get less, it's been the most effective measure to curb fraud ever brought in.

    She could play Curtis Cup next year and keep her award. (I'm not suggesting at all that she will be able to play again of course).


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


    cairny wrote: »
    They are hired before the trial, never after. They have become much more valuable in recent years as if you are found to be exaggerating your claim now you lose 100% of it and have to pay the other sides costs (10k a day in the High Court). Previously you would still succeed just get less, it's been the most effective measure to curb fraud ever brought in.

    She could play Curtis Cup next year and keep her award. (I'm not suggesting at all that she will be able to play again of course).

    Mad.

    from http://www.stosullivan.ie/media/woman-hit-by-golf-ball-sues-after-suffering-stroke.255.html
    Mr Trundle’s insurers had employed a detective agency to covertly film her as she walked her dog and relied on this evidence to suggest she was exaggerating her difficulties.
    If I had heard a warning I would have put my hands over my head and ducked to the ground,” she told Mr Justice Michael Peart.
    I would have to doubt her claim that a shout of FORE would have caused her to duck to the ground while standing on a balcony. Even the judge stated that it is unreasonable to expect to be hit while standing there.
    Doctors had told her she will have pain for the rest of her life and never drive again, she said. She has to wear special glasses and has a flickering in her eyes and double vision, she added.

    Cross-examined by Colm Condon SC, for Mr Trundle, Mrs Brennan agreed there were photographs of her without her glasses on her husband’s Facebook page while on holiday in Dubai. She said she has to wear glasses all the time but takes them off for photographs.


    I hope she doesnt have young kids, learning to count would be a big issue based on her claims.
    when somebody shouted fore I threw another lady in front of me

    I think there are going to be a lot more shouts of FORE these days, from me anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Mad.

    from http://www.stosullivan.ie/media/woman-hit-by-golf-ball-sues-after-suffering-stroke.255.html




    I would have to doubt her claim that a shout of FORE would have caused her to duck to the ground while standing on a balcony. Even the judge stated that it is unreasonable to expect to be hit while standing there.




    I hope she doesnt have young kids, learning to count would be a big issue based on her claims.



    I think there are going to be a lot more shouts of FORE these days, from me anyway.

    This ^^^ exactly. Who would ever duck due to a shout of fore if they weren't actually on the course ?? FFS.


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


    Russman wrote: »
    This ^^^ exactly. Who would ever duck due to a shout of fore if they weren't actually on the course ?? FFS.

    And what about a non golfer, lots of them on a balcony!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    Russman wrote: »
    This ^^^ exactly. Who would ever duck due to a shout of fore if they weren't actually on the course ?? FFS.


    I agree but if he has shouted and she hadn't ducked then it is more likely that her case would have failed on the basis that the golfer had done all he could to discharge his duty of care to her, by not shouting this allowed the court to find that he had fallen short of this duty.


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


    cairny wrote: »
    I agree but if he has shouted and she hadn't ducked then it is more likely that her case would have failed on the basis that the golfer had done all he could to discharge his duty of care to her, by not shouting this allowed the court to find that he had fallen short of this duty.

    Agreed, but isnt that the dangerous precedent?

    No FORE = automatic liability?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,833 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    As well, the logic outcome of this will be to shout fore in almost all circumstances were a ball might deviate slightly from course. Thus an unintended consequence will now be a cacophony of fores which will diminish its effectiveness.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Agreed, but isnt that the dangerous precedent?

    No FORE = automatic liability?

    It would be but that's not what he found. Really it's no more than you should shout fore when you hit a ball towards people. Same as it's always been really.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Wouldnt that totally depend on where he is playing the shot from?
    For example it wouldnt have to be offline at all if he was playing on a line where the flag is between himself and the balcony.

    The green is slightly past the balcony as I see it on Google Earth. This is a relatively straight hole with no doglegs. In order to be playing at the green with a nine iron and the balcony behind it, your second shot would have had to have been past the green and some 150 yards to the right of it. Also you'd have a far better view of the clubhouse.

    I've done a screen grab from GE to illustrate this. Red circles mark the balcony, 150 yards up the fairway from the centre of the green and one hundred yards to the right in a line to hit the balcony. I picked that point because it's about 160 yards from there to the balcony.

    318393.jpg


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


    rrpc wrote: »
    The green is slightly past the balcony as I see it on Google Earth. This is a relatively straight hole with no doglegs. In order to be playing at the green with a nine iron and the balcony behind it, your second shot would have had to have been past the green and some 150 yards to the right of it. Also you'd have a far better view of the clubhouse.

    I've done a screen grab from GE to illustrate this. Red circles mark the balcony, 150 yards up the fairway from the centre of the green and one hundred yards to the right in a line to hit the balcony. I picked that point because it's about 160 yards from there to the balcony.

    From what I've read I got the impression the golfer hit his approach shot from the left so over near the first tee box. The club house and balcony would still have been on his left but more more in line with his intended ball flight.

    Right on that hole is out of bounds so he couldn't have legitimately been hitting his approach shot from the red circle on the right. Can't remember if it was in this thread but I read the club have since changed the left side (ie first hole) to be out of bounds also when playing the 18th following this incident.


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


    I thought I saw somewhere (could be wrong) that he was playing in to the 18th from the 1st fairway. That's the 1st tee on the left of your screenshot, just in front of the putting green and beneath the path as we look at it.

    Its quite conceivable (I think), that he played over the trees and never imagined the ball to be heading towards the clubhouse at all. Not suggesting he's totally blameless, but accidents happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Russman wrote: »
    I thought I saw somewhere (could be wrong) that he was playing in to the 18th from the 1st fairway. That's the 1st tee on the left of your screenshot, just in front of the putting green and beneath the path as we look at it.

    Its quite conceivable (I think), that he played over the trees and never imagined the ball to be heading towards the clubhouse at all. Not suggesting he's totally blameless, but accidents happen.

    You can clearly see the clubhouse from the 1st fairway, in fact it's probably more visible from there than from the 18th. 150 yards out, you're almost on the first tee box. It's completely conceivable that he hooked his shot, but it's inconceivable that he didn't see it heading for the clubhouse.

    He was a member of the club was he not?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    rrpc wrote: »
    You can clearly see the clubhouse from the 1st fairway, in fact it's probably more visible from there than from the 18th. 150 yards out, you're almost on the first tee box. It's completely conceivable that he hooked his shot, but it's inconceivable that he didn't see it heading for the clubhouse.

    He was a member of the club was he not?

    I don't know if he was a member TBH. I've no idea exactly what happened, if he was out on the first fairway, was he obscured by trees, in the clear etc. Given what little we know, I wouldn't say anything is inconceivable. Maybe he just didn't see the ball flight at all, that can happen in certain light conditions, maybe his shot cleared the trees as it was rising and only began hooking once it was out of sight due to the trees, I haven't a clue. I'm not trying to justify what he did or didn't do at all.

    Just looking at the map again, even coming from the 1st, its a f--king long way off line for a 9 iron at the same time !


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Russman wrote: »
    Just looking at the map again, even coming from the 1st, its a f--king long way off line for a 9 iron at the same time !
    This is what has me puzzled too. I can hit a bad shot with a 9 iron as well as the next guy, but I can always see which direction it went, it's not like a driver where you can lose a ball in the sky or with a snap-hook or slice which you can never pick up. Also you can feel those in an iron where you mightn't have the same feel from a driver.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭Miley Byrne


    GreeBo wrote: »

    I hope she doesnt have young kids, learning to count would be a big issue based on her claims.


    Sorry, but I don't follow what you mean here?


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


    denisoc16 wrote: »
    Sorry, but I don't follow what you mean here?

    One...two...three...four...fi...hey, where did mommy go?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,023 Mod ✭✭✭✭charlieIRL


    rrpc wrote: »
    The green is slightly past the balcony as I see it on Google Earth. This is a relatively straight hole with no doglegs. In order to be playing at the green with a nine iron and the balcony behind it, your second shot would have had to have been past the green and some 150 yards to the right of it. Also you'd have a far better view of the clubhouse.

    I've done a screen grab from GE to illustrate this. Red circles mark the balcony, 150 yards up the fairway from the centre of the green and one hundred yards to the right in a line to hit the balcony. I picked that point because it's about 160 yards from there to the balcony.

    318393.jpg

    Sorry, which red circle was the ball hit from? The one on the left? Have never played there sonam not familiar with the course.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,023 Mod ✭✭✭✭charlieIRL


    GreeBo wrote: »
    One...two...three...four...fi...hey, where did mommy go?

    I dont get you there either??!


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


    I dont get you there either??!

    I'm not from the south side. So don't get humour

    But think it is a joke about her saying she would duck if "fore" was shouted.

    Sorry . I could be miles off the mark. (Like the 9 iron)

    But . Normally a stroke is not a laughing matter.

    Well it was , when I was 13 and a lad was bullied in school.


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


    charlieIRL wrote: »
    Sorry, which red circle was the ball hit from? The one on the left? Have never played there sonam not familiar with the course.

    The small red circle on the lower left is actually on the 18th fairway, the clubhouse one is obvious and that is the putting green to the left of it and the 1st tee to the left of that. The red circle to the right is O/B and a different hole as you will see that theres a stone wall with its shadow to the left of the water reservoirs (right of 18th green) which marks the O/B.

    I understood that the player was out top left on that photo and in front of the first tee, but I dont see how he could not see the balcony from there .... unless the whole thing was a well organised HIT :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    charlieIRL wrote: »
    Sorry, which red circle was the ball hit from? The one on the left? Have never played there sonam not familiar with the course.
    I didn't know where it was hit from when I posted that. I understand now that it was hit from somewhere on the 1st fairway which is the next one up in that screen grab and in direct line with the clubhouse:

    318502.jpg

    I've amended it to add a big circle of possible locations for the shot to be taken from.

    If he was in close to the trees between the 1st and 18th, he might have tried to fade it around them and onto the 18th green; a shot that could have gone badly wrong and went straight at the clubhouse instead. He may not have seen the flight of the ball, but it's a risky shot, especially with a 9 iron.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    I didn't really have an opinion on this as I wasn't sure of the facts of the case. Obviously the woman standing on the balcony couldn't be at fault, but from reading everything up to now it seemed pretty harsh to blame the golfer. However, having seen the above image it now seems almost impossible that the golfer wouldn't have known his ball was heading towards the clubhouse. Surely the only way he could have thought it was heading for the green was if he was playing from up near the bunker on the top left in which case he'd have to go over the clubhouse. So it looks to me as if he knew and didn't bother shouting fore, or else he wasn't even looking at his ball.


Advertisement