Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Golfer awarded near 300k in damages for incident

  • 11-08-2014 05:07PM
    #1
    TheDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


«13456

Comments

  • #2
    cairny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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

    Some more details in this thread.


  • #3
    ForeRight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭ForeRight


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

    That's a quote from the trial.



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

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

    Answer me this....

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


  • #4
    cairny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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

    That's a quote from the trial.



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

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

    Answer me this....

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

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


  • #5
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


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


  • #6
    popepaisley1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 120 ✭✭popepaisley1


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


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


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

    Indeed it would.
    popepaisley1 wrote: »
    i take it that the guy who hit the ball had no insurance. i presume it would have been settled out of court if he had

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


  • #8
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 17,133 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #9
    unattendedbag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 446 ✭✭unattendedbag


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

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


  • #10
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,145 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


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


  • #11
    popepaisley1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 120 ✭✭popepaisley1


    unattendedbag wrote: »

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


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


  • #13
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 56,821 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


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

    There are plenty of golfing accidents and awards too.

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


  • #14
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


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


  • #15
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,518 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


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

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


  • #16
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


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

    Whoof ! Defamation ?


  • #17
    fullstop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,591 ✭✭✭✭fullstop


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Whoof ! Defamation ?

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


  • #18
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,518 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Whoof ! Defamation ?

    9d488c4dd6b949416c85906c5bd7a4c3d3163632d5606a6a068e487c0f3a2d73.jpg


  • #19
    FixdePitchmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,015 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


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

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

    If in doubt shout fore.

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

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

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


  • #20
    cairny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    FixdePitchmark wrote: »
    I think people are being a bit harsh on this case.

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

    If in doubt shout fore.

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

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

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

    No he was insured.

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


  • #21
    FixdePitchmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,015 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    cairny wrote: »
    No he was insured.

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

    Well if he was insured - what is the issue ?

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

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

    But - when somebody has a stroke :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


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


  • #23
    cairny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    FixdePitchmark wrote: »
    Well if he was insured - what is the issue ?

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

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

    But - when somebody has a stroke :eek:

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

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


  • #24
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    GreeBo wrote: »
    9d488c4dd6b949416c85906c5bd7a4c3d3163632d5606a6a068e487c0f3a2d73.jpg

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

    What did you mean by your sentence ?


  • #25
    cairny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


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

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

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


  • #26
    FixdePitchmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,015 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


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

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

    Well - I wouldn't think like that.

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

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

    If one party is not insured -

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

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

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

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


  • #27
    cairny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    FixdePitchmark wrote: »
    Well - I wouldn't think like that.

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

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

    If one party is not insured -

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

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

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

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

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


  • #28
    FixdePitchmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,015 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


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

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

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

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

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


  • #29
    FixdePitchmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,015 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


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

    I accept that.

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


  • #30
    cairny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭cairny


    FixdePitchmark wrote: »
    I accept that.

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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    A New earth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 552 ✭✭✭A New earth


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


Advertisement
Advertisement