Spectator hit by ball loses sight in one eye

slave1

I know there is a Ryder Cup thread but I think the severity of the injury to this unlucky soul deserves a dedicated thread, plus this will play out a lot longer than the RC itself which is now over....

Background 28.09.18




Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines - American golfer Brooks Koepka was left shaken after injuring a spectator when he hit her in the face with a wild tee shot on the first day of the Ryder Cup in France.

Koepka’s drive on the par-four sixth hole veered into the gallery on the left of the green and struck the woman.

Three-time major winner Koepka gave a signed glove to the woman, who received immediate medical attention before being taken to hospital.

Doctors have confirmed the injury is not serious.

Update Monday October 2nd

All over the news, female and looks like she will lose sight of eye and looking at litigation as she never heard "fore" from where she was standing...


A spectator hit by a Brooks Koepka tee shot at the Ryder Cup says she has lost sight in her right eye and is considering legal action, AFP reports.

The incident happened on the opening day of the event when the American's drive on the par-four sixth hole veered off course, striking 49-year-old Corine Remande, who had travelled from Egypt.

"Doctors told me I had lost the use of that eye," she told AFP.

Mrs Remande said the reason for legal action was to help cover medical bills.

She added: "It happened so fast, I didn't feel any pain when I was hit.

"I didn't feel like the ball had struck my eye and then I felt the blood start to pour. The scan on Friday confirmed a fracture of the right eye-socket and an explosion of the eyeball."
Mrs Remande also criticised the Paris tournament organisers for "not making contact" after the incident to find out how she was. She also claims there was "no warning shout from the course official when the ball was heading towards the crowd".

The spectator praised three-time major winner Koepka, who went over to see how she was. Mrs Remande said she downplayed the incident so that the golfer "would stay concentrated".

"It looked like it hurt," the 28-year-old said afterwards.

He added: "It's hard to control a golf ball, especially for 300 yards, and a lot of times the fans are close to the fairway.

"You can yell 'fore' but it doesn't matter from 300 yards, you can't hear it."

fred funk }{

Very unfortunate but that a load of bollocks about not hearing a shout from 300 yards.

super_furry

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Very unfortunate but that a load of bollocks about not hearing a shout from 300 yards.

Maybe on an empty golf course on a Sunday morning, but you're not going to hear someone shout from 300 yards away if you're in the middle of a huge crowd at the Ryder Cup.

hesker

slave1 wrote: »

"You can yell 'fore' but it doesn't matter from 300 yards, you can't hear it."

Sounds like he didn’t shout.

Dbu

Looking at it they did seem to shout fore and Koepka did hold his driver out left to indicate the direction.

Mind you shouting fore doesn't seem to hold much water in recent court cases.

martinkop

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Very unfortunate but that a load of bollocks about not hearing a shout from 300 yards.

He did shout FORE though, a few on the tee did.

SuperSean11

Is it not a potential risk you have to expect as a spectator?

Joe_ Public

Be surprised if there wasn’t some kind of disclaimer. Read loads of accounts of people suing for damages but they’re not normally as a result of spectating at big tournaments. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

eastie17

But he signed his glove and gave it to her, so that's ok then

What usually happens when people sue? I mean you know the risks if you are going to spectate

listermint

tbh, her medical bills should be covered. I would imagine most of you arguing about symantics in this thread would have a different personal viewpoint if i took your sight away in 1 eye today.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

tbh, her medical bills should be covered. I would imagine most of your arguing about symantics in this thread would have a different personal viewpoint if i took your sight away in 1 eye today.

Id agree with you on that, but if everyone who got hit started suing itd mean very reduced numbers being let in to events id imagine

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

Id agree with you on that, but if everyone who got hit started suing itd mean very reduced numbers being let in to events id imagine

As i said, long and short of it is, She has lost sight in an Eye. That is life changing.

Kevin Finnerty

Could we see the day where all fairways will be netted off?

kiers47

Deleted User wrote: »

Id agree with you on that, but if everyone who got hit started suing itd mean very reduced numbers being let in to events id imagine

Or in Ireland it would be jammed!!

Trampas

I’d be surprised if she wins a case. There’ll be a disclaimer I’d imagine otherwise there’ll be a case ever week as how many people get hit every week by a golf ball while watching.

No insurance company would cover it and if they did the premium be huge.

Only hope she has is if brook pays the bills

GreeBo

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Could we see the day where all fairways will be netted off?

Unless you are going to put a roof on that wont make any difference.

Mantis Toboggan

Very unfortunate case if she does lose her sight. There's no real solution for avoiding this in future. I do believe the tour should give a contribution towards her medical costs as a gesture of good will.

Trampas

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Very unfortunate case if she does lose her sight. There's no real solution for avoiding this in future. I do believe the tour should give a contribution towards her medical costs as a gesture of good will.

If they do that where do you draw the line?

begbysback

The money in golf is astronomical and supporters usually pay for it directly, through entry fees and such, or indirectly as advertisement targets.

They can afford insurance premiums in these cases, the woman deserves to be compensated for both medical fees and extras.

Also of note, I've been to baseball games on the US - amazed nobody has been killed!!

GreeBo

Every event should use 5% of ticket price as insurance fund, problem solved.

Mantis Toboggan

Trampas wrote: »

If they do that where do you draw the line?

Well it'll be a gesture of good will so it won't exactly set a precedence for future incidents.

Niles Crane

If Koepka has anything about him at all he'll pay her medical expenses it would be a drop in the ocean for him.

I would imagine you have a much much bigger risk being badly injured driving to and from the golf course than you would of getting injured being struck by a ball at a golf course.There were 250,000 at the tournament during the week and only 1 person was injured badly so the chances of this happening are extremely small so because of that I can't imagine this will cause much trouble for golf in the future.You take a risk like this going to sports all over the world baseball,hurling,cricket,tennis (stefan edberg hit a ball that killed an umpire once) as they all have balls flying around at fast speed that could cause injury.

Kevin Finnerty

GreeBo wrote: »

Every event should use 5% of ticket price as insurance fund, problem solved.

Nope. It sets a precedence. Leaves the door open ajar for huge compo claims down the line.

Fine the players who don't shout, substantially. After that the onus is on the spectator, as it is in this case imo.

prawnsambo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Well it'll be a gesture of good will so it won't exactly set a precedence for future incidents.

It would also be a tacit acceptance of responsibility and far harder to defend in court as a result.

listermint

Trampas wrote: »

If they do that where do you draw the line?

At physical loss i would assume. As with most things.

I recall my parents paying a school mandated insurance sub back in the day which had listed payouts on it. Loss of limbs and sight was on the form.

Why would a tournament who has duty of care to paying customers be absolved from covering medical bills if someone literally loses their sight at their event.

Madness. There is enough money to cover such scenarios.

Trampas

listermint wrote: »

At physical loss i would assume. As with most things.

I recall my parents paying a school mandated insurance sub back in the day which had listed payouts on it. Loss of limbs and sight was on the form.

Why would a tournament who has duty of care to paying customers be absolved from covering medical bills if someone literally loses their sight at their event.

Madness. There is enough money to cover such scenarios.

Remember people are standing in front of people hitting an object at speed in their direction. The person hitting the ball doesn’t intend to hit them but sometimes they do. Where’s the duty of care from the person to make sure they can’t be hit by standing behind the person. I’m just playing devils advocate. I just think it gets a legal mindfield.

Was it Watson who did aim at people this year or did I imagine that. Safe option.

GreeBo

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Nope. It sets a precedence. Leaves the door open ajar for huge compo claims down the line.

Fine the players who don't shout, substantially. After that the onus is on the spectator, as it is in this case imo.

Whats wrong with a precedence exactly?

Spurious claims would obviously be ignored.

Someone gets injured and has lifechanging injuries...whats wrong with using some of the tens of millions of prize money from each event to support them?

Yunno, spectators...the people who watch golf, the only reason there is so much money in golf?

Your attitude to spectators is frankly ghastly.

listermint

Trampas wrote: »

Remember people are standing in front of people hitting an object at speed in their direction. The person hitting the ball doesn’t intend to hit them but sometimes they do. Where’s the duty of care from the person to make sure they can’t be hit by standing behind the person. I’m just playing devils advocate. I just think it gets a legal mindfield.

Was it Watson who did aim at people this year or did I imagine that. Safe option.

Who said anyone intended to hit anyone ?

That is not what insurance in primary school was for , it was to cover medical costs in accidents scenarios for Injury.

GreeBo

Trampas wrote: »

Remember people are standing in front of people hitting an object at speed in their direction. The person hitting the ball doesn’t intend to hit them but sometimes they do. Where’s the duty of care from the person to make sure they can’t be hit by standing behind the person. I’m just playing devils advocate. I just think it gets a legal mindfield.

Was it Watson who did aim at people this year or did I imagine that. Safe option.

People driving cars dont mean to hit other people but they do, hence we have insurance. Not sure why this is any different tbh?

mickdw

She will get compensated and deserves to.
Organisers have a duty of care towards paying spectactors. Take a sport like formula one. It is often mentioned its a dangerous sport however competitors accept the risks, marshalls know the risk they take and accept it. A spectator on the other hand is entitled to presume that their safety is being looked after and in all cases everything is done to ensure that.
There must be significant areas for viewing where a pro golfer is never going to hit. Allowing people to line the fairway when there is a fair chance of the ball going off to the side is negligent imo.

GreeBo

I'd say most likely change, if any, would be to start adding covered areas along side holes, the most risk is getting hit from above so this would negate a lot of it.

More fun would be to have OOB lining every hole outside the rough line, that would certainly cut down on the wild lashes off the tee!

uncommon_name

As much as it is a terrible thing she has lost her sight. She went to spectate a game of golf with the risk of being hit by a ball. She obviously wasn't doing a great deal of spectating if she didn't see the ball fading right and also if she didn't notice people on the tee box shouting fore.
If they were to add in insurance for these tournaments I can guarantee the prices of tickets will go up a lot and then people will be complaining because of one bad incident and one persons injury they now have to pay more. Or stop letting as many people in which will have people complaining over the same thing.
I am sure the tournament itself generates enough money to cover the costs, but if they do pay out once they have to do it all the time.
Koepka shouldn't have to pay out to her either, he is there to play the game which usually happens on empty or near empty courses, it is not his fault that the event organizers are letting people in to spectate them playing. Yes it does contribute to how much he gets paid, but then he has to pay it all back to someone because of an accident. They are humans after all, they cant hit be ball straight where they want it every single time.

Joe_ Public

I sincerely hope this woman gets whatever compensation she deserves and it’s always distressing to see somebody laid out injured after being struck by an errant gold shot.

At the same time there is potentially a legal situation here and I don’t see there is much wrong with deliberating how it might play out. I’m no legal mind so have no clue. But as regards baseball that was mentioned, I do believe there is no recourse for spectators who suffer injuries. Open to correction on that, though. Golf may be different of course. They could just settle it quietly I suppose, pay her medical bills and maybe more. Think most would be happy with that.

loyatemu

it's a pretty rare occurrence for something this serious to happen, the event really should have insurance to cover it.

listermint

uncommon_name wrote: »

As much as it is a terrible thing she has lost her sight. She went to spectate a game of golf with the risk of being hit by a ball. She obviously wasn't doing a great deal of spectating if she didn't see the ball fading right and also if she didn't notice people on the tee box shouting fore.
If they were to add in insurance for these tournaments I can guarantee the prices of tickets will go up a lot and then people will be complaining because of one bad incident and one persons injury they now have to pay more. Or stop letting as many people in which will have people complaining over the same thing.
I am sure the tournament itself generates enough money to cover the costs, but if they do pay out once they have to do it all the time.
Koepka shouldn't have to pay out to her either, he is there to play the game which usually happens on empty or near empty courses, it is not his fault that the event organizers are letting people in to spectate them playing. Yes it does contribute to how much he gets paid, but then he has to pay it all back to someone because of an accident. They are humans after all, they cant hit be ball straight where they want it every single time.

Yep shame on the spectator for not moving out of the way of that 340Kmph almost invisible white ball.
...

Kevin Finnerty

GreeBo wrote: »

Whats wrong with a precedence exactly?

Spurious claims would obviously be ignored.

Someone gets injured and has lifechanging injuries...whats wrong with using some of the tens of millions of prize money from each event to support them?

Yunno, spectators...the people who watch golf, the only reason there is so much money in golf?

Your attitude to spectators is frankly ghastly.

Ghastly? It's their decision to stand in front of a small ball travelling at over 100mph. Total control would be a robot standing on every tee, if thats what you want to watch have at it. The future of golf is to go the way of compo culture?
"Tens of millions" available for everyone to have a snip at on a whim and youre ok with that?

Where exactly is the line between spurious and life changing?

uncommon_name

listermint wrote: »

Yep shame on the spectator for not moving out of the way of that 340Kmph almost invisible white ball.
...

Well anyone that plays golf or is in to golf knows, if someone shouts FORE, you duct and cover your head. You don't need to see the ball before you move out of the way, you just protect yourself just in case.

prawnsambo

listermint wrote: »

Yep shame on the spectator for not moving out of the way of that 340Kmph almost invisible white ball.
...

340Kph? Average launch speed for a driven ball by a PGA tour player is around 165Mph. By the time it's on its downward trajectory, that's substantially reduced.

kiers47

listermint wrote: »

Yep shame on the spectator for not moving out of the way of that 340Kmph almost invisible white ball.
...

Just out of curiosity where in the name of god did you pull that figure from?

If the ball was travelling at that speed it probably would have went 400 yards carry so she would have been safe enough at 300.

GreeBo

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

"Tens of millions" available for everyone to have a snip at on a whim and youre ok with that?

Where exactly is the line between spurious and life changing?

"Have a snip at on a whim?"
No, people who get injured should be able to use this insurance fund for treatment. There is no "on a whim" other than in your head.

I clearly said "life-changing" injuries, I think losing an eye qualifies as life changing. Any personal insurance policy will give a breakdown of payouts based on injury, why should this be any different?

uncommon_name wrote: »

If they were to add in insurance for these tournaments I can guarantee the prices of tickets will go up a lot and then people will be complaining because of one bad incident and one persons injury they now have to pay more. Or stop letting as many people in which will have people complaining over the same thing.

Just use some of the existing ridiculous profits, no need to increase ticket prices.
There is more than enough money in the pot, just look at next years FedEx Cup prize fund.

uncommon_name wrote: »

I am sure the tournament itself generates enough money to cover the costs, but if they do pay out once they have to do it all the time.

How about just "all the time" someone has serious injuries?

uncommon_name wrote: »

They are humans after all, they cant hit be ball straight where they want it every single time.

Indeed they cant...hence Insurance.

listermint

kiers47 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity where in the name of god did you pull that figure from?

If the ball was travelling at that speed it probably would have went 400 yards carry so she would have been safe enough at 300.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=golf+ball+speed&rlz=1C1GCEA_enIE804IE804&oq=golf+bal&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.3320j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Max Velocity


Point still stands its very fast and she was close.

uncommon_name

GreeBo wrote: »

"Have a snip at on a whim?"
No, people who get injured should be able to use this insurance fund for treatment. There is no "on a whim" other than in your head.

I clearly said "life-changing" injuries, I think losing an eye qualifies as life changing. Any personal insurance policy will give a breakdown of payouts based on injury, why should this be any different?


Just use some of the existing ridiculous profits, no need to increase ticket prices.
There is more than enough money in the pot, just look at next years FedEx Cup prize fund.

How about just "all the time" someone has serious injuries?



Indeed they cant...hence Insurance.

We all know they wont use money from the current profits. Tickets will go up to pay for it.
Yes, I agree only when someone has a serious injury they should pay out, but what counts as a serious injury. What about someone that gets hit in the leg say and cant walk for a week or so without being in pain. They will say they are out of work and therefore its a serious injury and they should be compensated for missing out on work. What if someone say gets a broken foot or something and if affected every time they go out in the cold by pain etc.. (I can confirm that that does happen). Certain people would count that as a life changing injury. I don't but you know what people are like, especially Americans, they milk everything as much as they can when it comes to this kind of thing.
Spectators should take more care and wear some sort of protective gear if they have to and a T&C should be added that states once you purchase a ticket to the event you agree to the condition that nobody can be held liable for you being hit and injured by a stray ball.

GreeBo

uncommon_name wrote: »

We all know they wont use money from the current profits. Tickets will go up to pay for it.
Yes, I agree only when someone has a serious injury they should pay out, but what counts as a serious injury. What about someone that gets hit in the leg say and cant walk for a week or so without being in pain. They will say they are out of work and therefore its a serious injury and they should be compensated for missing out on work. What if someone say gets a broken foot or something and if affected every time they go out in the cold by pain etc.. (I can confirm that that does happen). Certain people would count that as a life changing injury. I don't but you know what people are like, especially Americans, they milk everything as much as they can when it comes to this kind of thing.
Spectators should take more care and wear some sort of protective gear if they have to and a T&C should be added that states once you purchase a ticket to the event you agree to the condition that nobody can be held liable for you being hit and injured by a stray ball.

None of this is a new problem to the insurance industry...why are we trying to make this harder than it has to be?

Get event insurance, insurance assessor determines when/what to payout, job done.

I dont think people are suggesting that some random bloke on the tour would have a bag of money he would give to people who are sore...

GreeBo

listermint wrote: »

Max Velocity

What tour does he play on?

lawred2

hesker wrote: »

Sounds like he didn’t shout.

Is it not up to the marshalls to shout?

lawred2

Trampas wrote: »

I’d be surprised if she wins a case. There’ll be a disclaimer I’d imagine otherwise there’ll be a case ever week as how many people get hit every week by a golf ball while watching.

No insurance company would cover it and if they did the premium be huge.

Only hope she has is if brook pays the bills

?

How many serious injuries have you heard of at professional golf events?

Insurers will measure risk and the risk of this happening is low - not high

lawred2

loyatemu wrote: »

it's a pretty rare occurrence for something this serious to happen, the event really should have insurance to cover it.

of course there will be insurance

any such event will need public liability insurance

slave1

Look, an injury like this is extremely rare, given the amount of folk attending these events I for one cannot remember one like this.

Yes, as a spectator you take the risk, that's a given, but it's up to the organisers to plot out where spectators can stand/view so they are in there somewhere.

She went to see the RC, given she was buried in a crowd well away from the tee I highly doubt she could hear a clear shout of fore as she has already stated.
None of the officials near her shouted fore either according to her.

I was not there so that's all to go on for the moment.

Keepka himself is bound to have some form of insurance if not the US RC team or the RC event itself, not to mention the venue.

I also think it's very bad form for the RC not to have kept in contact with her in the days after the incident.

I hope the doctors got it wrong and she gets her sight back, but for a life changing event like this she is well entitled to monetary compensation so she can be afforded the best possible medical care.

slave1

prawnsambo

listermint wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/search?q=golf+ball+speed&rlz=1C1GCEA_enIE804IE804&oq=golf+bal&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.3320j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Max Velocity


Point still stands its very fast and she was close.

Yeah, that's about the fastest a golf ball has ever travelled. And I would assume that's initial velocity, which is the highest measurable. She was actually far away. The ball hit her from a drive, which would have been at the end of its travel and at its slowest. But that's no comfort to someone who's eyeball exploded from the impact.