Golfer awarded near 300k in damages for incident

charlieIRL · 15-08-2014 10:12AM

yaboya1 wrote: »

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.

same here.

Russman · 15-08-2014 10:24AM

Was / is the guy who hit the ball a good player ? Wondering if maybe he took on a shot that was too much for him. Who tries to cut a 9 iron 30 yards ?

yaboya1 · 15-08-2014 10:25AM

Russman wrote: »

Was / is the guy who hit the ball a good player ? Wondering if maybe he took on a shot that was too much for him. Who tries to cut a 9 iron 30 yards ?

I've no idea, but even if he did how could he not realise when the ball was in flight that it wasn't heading towards the green? Even if you play a shot like that successfully, you can see the ball turning in the air.

GreeBo · 15-08-2014 10:27AM

Russman wrote: »

Was / is the guy who hit the ball a good player ? Wondering if maybe he took on a shot that was too much for him. Who tries to cut a 9 iron 30 yards ?

8 handicap.
there was some mention of his first shot being OOB, but I dont know if that was a drive or first attempt at approach shot.

GreeBo · 15-08-2014 10:29AM

yaboya1 wrote: »

I've no idea, but even if he did how could he not realise when the ball was in flight that it wasn't heading towards the green? Even if you play a shot like that successfully, you can see the ball turning in the air.

If he was hitting over the bigger tree (in line with what looks like the putting green) he could easily have just misaligned.
Effectively hitting a blind shot and just got his aim wrong, hits a beautiful high shot, hears nothing from anyone else and then gets up there shocked to hear he hit the clubhouse.

Dr_Colossus · 15-08-2014 10:31AM

Russman wrote: »

Was / is the guy who hit the ball a good player ? Wondering if maybe he took on a shot that was too much for him. Who tries to cut a 9 iron 30 yards ?

9 handicap player I believe so whether that's a good or bad player is up for interpretation. Either way good and bad players can all hit bad shots.

What's somewhat confusing is that it was relayed he and his playing partners all thought he'd hit a good shot directed at the green, that implies he at least saw the ball flight (not sure how his playing partners would know what kind of shot he hit if from another fairway/rough though, perhaps they were all looking for his ball and watched him hit it from the adjoining fairway/rough)

yaboya1 · 15-08-2014 10:33AM

GreeBo wrote: »

If he was hitting over the bigger tree (in line with what looks like the putting green) he could easily have just misaligned.
Effectively hitting a blind shot and just got his aim wrong, hits a beautiful high shot, hears nothing from anyone else and then gets up there shocked to hear he hit the clubhouse.

Maybe, but it's a very thin line. Being a member he surely should have known how close the clubhouse was coming in from that angle.

Miley Byrne · 15-08-2014 10:35AM

GreeBo wrote: »

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

GreeBo · 15-08-2014 10:39AM

yaboya1 wrote: »

Maybe, but it's a very thin line. Being a member he surely should have known how close the clubhouse was coming in from that angle.

Well he thought he was aiming at a target 30 yards right of where he ended up, I think we have all done that.

rrpc · 15-08-2014 10:43AM

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

9 handicap player I believe so whether that's a good or bad player is up for interpretation. Either way good and bad players can all hit bad shots.

What's somewhat confusing is that it was relayed he and his playing partners all thought he'd hit a good shot directed at the green, that implies he at least saw the ball flight (not sure how his playing partners would know what kind of shot he hit if from another fairway/rough though, perhaps they were all looking for his ball and watched him hit it from the adjoining fairway/rough)

If you're standing alongside the path of the ball, it's extremely hard to see the direction it's going. It might have looked like a good shot from its flight, but be twenty or thirty yards offline at the end.

I think Greebo's analysis may be correct; in close enough to the trees not to have a clear view of the clubhouse and the ball flight after it cleared the big tree.

However, in those situations, you always (or at least I do) walk around the line of your shot until you can find an aiming point that you can see and which puts you in line with the flag. It might just be a part of the tree in front of you or a gap at ground level or whatever, but you'd always need something to point yourself at.

GreeBo · 15-08-2014 10:48AM

rrpc wrote: »

However, in those situations, you always (or at least I do) walk around the line of your shot until you can find an aiming point that you can see and which puts you in line with the flag. It might just be a part of the tree in front of you or a gap at ground level or whatever, but you'd always need something to point yourself at.

I assume he did that, rather than just blindly guess, but its still very easy to get offline.

rrpc · 15-08-2014 11:07AM

GreeBo wrote: »

I assume he did that, rather than just blindly guess, but its still very easy to get offline.

It is, but with a nine iron, you tend to see and feel if it is. To get over trees, you'd be trying to get it up quickly and that might have contributed to him losing it but it's still a long way offline to hit the clubhouse from there.

Russman · 15-08-2014 12:37PM

There must be something in the story that we're not getting or are unaware of, in terms of the actual shot that was played. Even from side on, while you might not know exactly what line your playing partner's ballflight is on, you'll certainly know if its miles offline. Its all very odd.

rrpc · 15-08-2014 12:55PM

Russman wrote: »

There must be something in the story that we're not getting or are unaware of, in terms of the actual shot that was played. Even from side on, while you might not know exactly what line your playing partner's ballflight is on, you'll certainly know if its miles offline. Its all very odd.

If they were on the 18th fairway, they could have been as much as thirty yards away from him. Hard to know but with all the trees there, easy to lose sight of it. Some people just watch the initial flight of a ball and then drop it if they think it's ok. In the first 30-40 yards of flight it would only have been 10 yards offline. That's pretty hard to pick up unless you're behind the ball.

I've been in a similar situation with a playing partner whose ball flight I was able to see until it went behind trees. I had a twenty to thirty yard area in which I felt his ball could have landed due to the angle and my position.

PARlance · 15-08-2014 01:24PM

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Very bad taste imo.

A judge seemed to think her that claims were valid.
She got a smack of a golf ball that more that likely brought on a stroke... Judge didn't rule otherwise.

I wouldn't blame her about having a fear of being hit again.
I've been concussed a couple of times on the pitch and it certainly took me a while before I was playing without a lingering fear of it happening again.
Getting concussion is nothing compared to getting a smack of a golf ball and finding out later that it probably caused you to have a stroke.

SaveOurLyric · 16-08-2014 08:30PM

SnowDrifts wrote: »

A quick search on CRO shows that Old Conna WAS indeed a registered company but was dissolved in May of this year. Interesting.

Interesting alright. Does anyone know anymore on this aspect? Was it a consequence of this case ? Can a disolved company still be liable for claims against it if it doesnt exist anymore ?

SaveOurLyric · 16-08-2014 08:41PM

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

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.

I dont really understand the assumption that someone (who is another question) must be responsible. Without belittling what happened to the lady at all, sometime shyte just happens.
Why the need to finger someone who must foot a bill plus compensation ? If she had health insurance then they would have paid. If not the the HSE would have. And just for the medical expenses. Not all the addons of stress, trauma, fearful of playing golf, upset my holiday or whatever you're having yourself to up the claim.

If the swinger didnt have golf insurance or the insurance squirmed out of paying up for whatever reason, who pays if he does have 300k sitting around ?

Is the solution not to have all golf clubs compelled to have insurance for whatever eventuality. And noone has personal insurance - if it happens on the club premises as a result of golf play than all are covered.

Still has me concerned though. I wouldnt be too confident in the idea that an implication of the judgement is shout fore and you are OK. I curve at least a ball drive a round over trees onto a neighbouring fairway with no way to see if someone is there. I shout fore. And it does surprise me that cases of direct hits are not more common. But if I hit someone, not comfortable now that either I would be deemed not liable, or that my insurance (20€ a year through the club, I have never studieds its fine print) would protect me from having to pay out big. With money I dont have.

cairny · 16-08-2014 09:15PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I dont really understand the assumption that someone (who is another question) must be responsible. Without belittling what happened to the lady at all, sometime shyte just happens.
Why the need to finger someone who must foot a bill plus compensation ? If she had health insurance then they would have paid. If not the the HSE would have. And just for the medical expenses. Not all the addons of stress, trauma, fearful of playing golf, upset my holiday or whatever you're having yourself to up the claim.

If the swinger didnt have golf insurance or the insurance squirmed out of paying up for whatever reason, who pays if he does have 300k sitting around ?

Is the solution not to have all golf clubs compelled to have insurance for whatever eventuality. And noone has personal insurance - if it happens on the club premises as a result of golf play than all are covered.

Still has me concerned though. I wouldnt be too confident in the idea that an implication of the judgement is shout fore and you are OK. I curve at least a ball drive a round over trees onto a neighbouring fairway with no way to see if someone is there. I shout fore. And it does surprise me that cases of direct hits are not more common. But if I hit someone, not comfortable now that either I would be deemed not liable, or that my insurance (20€ a year through the club, I have never studieds its fine print) would protect me from having to pay out big. With money I dont have.

The non shout left a way open for the Judge to make an award, (in the knowledge that there was an insurance company involved).

If there had been a shout and he still made an award then that would have been a new precedent and would have been a very big step for him to take.

This case did not set any new precedent imo.

I'll try and answer your insurance questions in Monday (only have phone here).

I can understand people being concerned but this situation is no different to hundreds of other every day accidents.

SaveOurLyric · 16-08-2014 09:33PM

cairny wrote: »

The non shout left a way open for the Judge to make an award, (in the knowledge that there was an insurance company involved).

I know nothing of the law. Do judges really think like that ? I would have thought that element should be immaterial to his judgement of whether the hitter was liable. Whether the hitter then has insurance to pay the liability is rather just his own business. If that did influence the judges decision then what if by whatever method, the insurance company then left the hitter out to dry. He has to work the rest of his life paying off a 300k bill ?
Does make me wonder if four or five chips with a 7 iron might be my best way to get down our 4th fairway. I was nervous enough of hooking it, yet again, out onto the 5th as it was.

cairny · 16-08-2014 09:42PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I know nothing of the law. Do judges really think like that ? I would have thought that element should be immaterial to his judgement of whether the hitter was liable. Whether the hitter then has insurance to pay the liability is rather just his own business. If that did influence the judges decision then what if by whatever method, the insurance company then left the hitter out to dry. He has to work the rest of his life paying off a 300k bill ?
Does make me wonder if four or five chips with a 7 iron might be my best way to get down our 4th fairway. I was nervous enough of hooking it, yet again, out onto the 5th as it was.

There's a cynical view that it does influence Judges if they know there's an insurer picking up the tab, I can't say if there's anything in it or not but they're only human.

There seems to be a view on here that the insurance company isn't paying, I don't think that's correct. Confusion like this often arises when they defend a case, people presume that means they are not covering. Really it's just the opposite, they're covering your liability but arguing that you're not liable, if a court finds otherwise they have to pay.

I don't want to freak you out completely but imagine you're walking down a busy street and accidentally trip the guy ahead of you causing him to fall and split his head...he could sue you...and he'd win.

Potentially being sued is just a normal part of being out in the world I'm afraid. At least on the course we have the defence of shouting fore.

Check whatever policies you have and swing away.

PARlance · 16-08-2014 09:47PM

Your €20 payment to golfsure covers you for up to €2,600,000 in personal liability.

The golfer was insured, there's no hint of them stiffing the individual.

PARlance · 16-08-2014 09:55PM

And I wouldn't feel too bad about Golfsure having to make a €250,000 payment that a judge stands over.

There are ~200,000 golfers in Ireland. Even if only 50% of golfers take out insurance (I'm sure it's a lot higher) then that's still €2million a year they are taking (raking) in.

It's €20 per year, if you pay you are covered.... I couldn't feel too sorry for someone that skimps on it.

PARlance · 16-08-2014 09:57PM

Link to what your Golfsure Insurance covers you for:
http://www.roganstowngc.com/_fileupload/Golfsure%20Personal%20-%20Summary%20of%20Cover%20for%20Members.pdf

*thanks to Roganstown GC who have it on their site.

SaveOurLyric · 16-08-2014 10:00PM

PARlance wrote: »

Your €20 payment to golfsure covers you for up to €2,600,000 in personal liability.

The golfer was insured, there's no hint of them stiffing the individual.

Having not read the fine print though. I dont know there isnt (I should sure, but fine print is fine because everyone knows no one reads it) a line that, the same as the judge finding the man liable, the insurance could point to saying, 'you didnt take reasonable care, didnt shout fore, so sorry, insurance doesnt pay in this case'.

SaveOurLyric · 16-08-2014 10:04PM

PARlance wrote: »

And as an aside, if the guy didn't have insurance I think the lady (her solicitors) would have went after the club.

Which would show what an immoral, injust game, the law is. You chase the cash rather than determine true justice. But guess your are right, and possibly also why the ltd companu shut it self. Just in case she didnt get her cash in this case, and then decided to go after the club.

cairny · 16-08-2014 10:09PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Having not read the fine print though. I dont know there isnt (I should sure, but fine print is fine because everyone knows no one reads it) a line that, the same as the judge finding the man liable, the insurance could point to saying, 'you didnt take reasonable care, didnt shout fore, so sorry, insurance doesnt pay in this case'.

Not really tbh, insurance companies are regulated and such a term would be clearly unfair, it would be struck down both at industry level and or arbitration.

Your negligence is covered, deliberate act would be a different matter but let's assume no of us is going out to deliberately injure someone.

PARlance · 16-08-2014 10:09PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Having not read the fine print though. I dont know there isnt (I should sure, but fine print is fine because everyone knows no one reads it) a line that, the same as the judge finding the man liable, the insurance could point to saying, 'you didnt take reasonable care, didnt shout fore, so sorry, insurance doesnt pay in this case'.

I'm not a solicitor but I'm 99.9% certain it doesn't/can't work like that.
If I get hit by a drunk driver then their insurance pays up.
My house insurance will pay out if It burns down because I left the iron on.

So I can't see Golfsure arguing that you should have listened to Greebo and just laid up

I'm almost certain they pay out any eventuality unless they want to argue that it was deliberate/a scam.

SaveOurLyric · 16-08-2014 10:11PM

Thanks. Will pull out the big dog on the tee tomorrow so.

PARlance · 16-08-2014 10:18PM

Edit: Cheers Cairny

cairny · 16-08-2014 10:24PM

No bother. Time to get back to worrying about putting.

Golfer awarded near 300k in damages for incident

Comments