Negligence if your ball hits someone off the course?

[lcfd42]

I would wonder though if the same premis applies where a person fires a shot from a firearm (rifle/handgun/or bow), and the shooter is responsible for his/her projectile until it has stopped. Also that the shooter is responsible for any damages caused by the projectile, whether within the line of sight or not, until all energy has been dispersed. Which really means that you could be shooting your favorite .22 rifle on a legal range, have a "freak" ricochet, and the bullet travels outside of the range to a neighboring property causing someone bodily harm. The shooter is still liable. As BS as it sounds, it would seem the same would apply here. You are using an implement - a golf club - to apply force to a projectile, for which the golfer is responsible for until it energy had dissipated enough to be deemed safe. The club can be aimed (similar to a gun), a shot can be taken at will (the gun fired), and the golf course would be the "range" in this case since O.B. is designated.
Just a thought.

[nike_golf]

I would wonder though if the same premis applies where a person fires a shot from a firearm (rifle/handgun/or bow), and the shooter is responsible for his/her projectile until it has stopped. Also that the shooter is responsible for any damages caused by the projectile, whether within the line of sight or not, until all energy has been dispersed. Which really means that you could be shooting your favorite .22 rifle on a legal range, have a "freak" ricochet, and the bullet travels outside of the range to a neighboring property causing someone bodily harm. The shooter is still liable. As BS as it sounds, it would seem the same would apply here. You are using an implement - a golf club - to apply force to a projectile, for which the golfer is responsible for until it energy had dissipated enough to be deemed safe. The club can be aimed (similar to a gun), a shot can be taken at will (the gun fired), and the golf course would be the "range" in this case since O.B. is designated.

Good point. It seems every year here in Minnesota there is an accident involving firearms during deer season. Whether it's a high powered rifle accidentally shot into a home, or an unfortunate deer hunter who was in the line of fire of another hunter shooting at a deer.

Reckless discharge of a firearm is the minimum a person will be charged for either accidentally shooting someone or something such as a house. Obviously, a loss of hunting license for a period of time goes w/ that as well. There is great responsibility while hunting and firing a weapon that can travel up to and more than a mile. I find it hard to fathom that shooting a golf ball and firing a weapon would even be remotely on the same level as far as being really cautious for possible bodily harm unto another person.

[lcfd42]

Good point. It seems every year here in Minnesota there is an accident involving firearms during deer season. Whether it's a high powered rifle shot accidentally shot into a home, or an unfortunate deer hunter who was in the line of fire of another hunter shooting at a deer.

The thing we must remember is that under our laws "any device that can expel a projectile that would be considered dangerous or damaging to person or property can be considered a firearm" i.e. slingshot, bb-gun, archery equipment, even potato shooters.

Also consider that, a golf shot is aimed and shot at will as well, and a golf ball is a very dangerous projectile easily traveling 225-250fps. The thing is a good attorney can be very convincing in making this comparison to a jury. I'm just throwing up an arguement here. I think it's total BS, but this is how they win these cases is by making these type comparisons.

[keb]

I am a lawyer and handle personal injury cases. This post is right on. The judge appears to have simply determined that a fact question existed for the jury. In other words, reasonable persons could disagree and therefore the case could not be decided as a matter of law. In most states the prevailing party can ultimately recover certain taxable costs if they prevail and in the event a claim is deemed frivolous recover attorney's fees. At this stage each party will be accessing the risks of going forward and letting a jury decide the questions of fault and damages.

I'm not an attorney, but I understand that in this case the golfer would be liable based on the "assumption of risk". A driver on the road is assumed to be accepting of certain risks of driving on the road, but since it is a bonafide road and expected to allow safe transport for a car, the driver does not assume any risk. In the case of a home on a golf course, the homeowner is knowledgeable of the golf course and assumes a reasonable risk. "Reasonable" is also a key term here - the homeowner assumes the risk for golfers in the normal course of play, but does not assume the risk of golfers deliberate firing drivers at their living room window.

[DocWu1948]

Does anyone know what the golf course's (the place that this occured) stance is on this issue? Are they taking a stance at all?

The course is also being sued. It's been around since the 1920's, and I think that is true of many of the homes that border it. It may have been homes on the fairway 80 years ago, but now there are fences and trees separating the two in most cases, It's a public course, and family owned since before WWII. The same family owns Cog Hill, a Fedex Cup venue, and the owner is well recognized in the industry and has probably seen everything in his career.

[iacas]

I never said a golf ball wouldn't hurt or can't do some damage. When you bring in the size of the golf ball compared to a paint ball, sure, the golf ball is going to look worse on paper. The key w/ that is speed. High velocity of a projectile on a human body = pain & damage.

No, the math I did accounted for speed, and yet the golf ball packed a bunch more energy.

And that fails to account for the fact that with a golf ball, the energy is often directed at a very small area (pressure per square inch is high) while a paint ball expends a lot of its energy in breaking the capsule and dispersing in a bunch of directions. A paint ball - even if it hits the firmest part of your body (maybe the top of your skull, like a golf ball would) will dissipate energy. A golf ball to the butt or a paint ball to the eye? You choose the former. But in almost every other instance you choose the paint ball. My math accounted for velocity. You're wrong, and in denial. I've been hit by paintballs. I've seen people hit by golf balls, and not just on TV. You rarely have to visit the hospital after being hit by a paint ball - or even receive medical treatment. People on the golf course are often taken to the hospital.

In this case, I would rather get hit w/ a golf ball going 55 than a paint ball going 150.

The math doesn't bear out your preference.

The example of the guy losing an eye is an extreme one. You have to admit that. Thinking about it, it's still hard to believe exactly how that could happen.

Ruptured cornea, torn muscles, shattered orbital bones... I don't know what happened to him but all of those and more could result.

I know a guy who got hit with a bladed bunker shot - not a long swing at all, a 10-yard bunker shot - and had a bone bruise for a month. Right on his shoulder blade. I know another guy who broke his nose when someone flew a pitch shot way too far.

Yes, but other than there, I can't see it doing much of any kind of damage to anyone.

Your wrist. Your knee cap. Your ankle. Your spine. Fingers, toes. Your shoulder. Clavicle. Ribs.

Baseball players turn away and purposefully take impact in a soft spot. People hit with golf balls don't often have that option.

I would like to know HOW this guy was hit and WHERE he was hit. Something about this has to be a "perfect storm" of sorts to perfectly strike him in the right spot, at the right angle, and at a very high speed for this to have occured. I'm no doctor, but something is fishy when you have multiple football players getting multiple concussions every Sunday, and yet nothing like this happens.

Oh brother. Football players have helmets and their impact is an entirely different dynamic. Stop trying to bring other sports into the fold. They're different. Here's an analogy you've not made: I'll hit you with the round end of a ball peen hammer - you can't know where so are unable to react - and see how you like it. I won't even swing very hard. If you don't scream like a little girl and require medical attention, you win. Deal?

[TakeDeadAim]

Incredible that a golf course is not obligated to carry liability insurance for damages occured by non-negligent players. The golf course shoud pay the lady for whatever damages the player of that course caused. The golf course shoudl then go after the player if negligence is believed to be the cause of the mishap.

[iacas]

Incredible that a golf course is not obligated to carry liability insurance for damages occured by non-negligent players. The golf course shoud pay the lady for whatever damages the player of that course caused. The golf course shoudl then go after the player if negligence is believed to be the cause of the mishap.

Yeah, I don't see it that way. You're suggesting that playing golf is a negligent act? And a woman who buys a home on an existing golf course is without any assumption of risk?

[Doctorfro]

She assumes the risk of living on a golf course.

I agree with this. That's why when I bought on a golf course I made sure we were out of harms way.

[Fourputt]

I see this all the time, people

Like the people who buy a house in the landing/takeoff pattern for an airport because they can get more house for the money, then start a petition make the airport change the traffic pattern because it's too noisy.

"...negligent by failing to properly execute the swing of his golf club"

Agreed, IF that was all there was to the plaintiff's argument.

[sacm3bill]

Agreed, IF that was all there was to the plaintiff's argument.

To me it doesn't matter what else was in the argument. The fact that the judge said this one was valid is what bothers me.

To paraphrase what Erik said above, if failure to properly execute the swing is negligent, then playing golf itself is negligent.

[nike_golf]

No, the math I did accounted for speed, and yet the golf ball packed a bunch more energy.

I'll concede about the paintball, LOL. But, in instances of bladed and pitched shots, the speed of the ball has to be a bit greater than 55 mph to be able to break orbital bones and tear muscles.

I have seen people on TV get hit w/ drives quite a bit. Right on the head. I believe it would hurt, but 99% of the time you walk away from it w/ a knot on your head and nothing more. To hear about concussions and life altering disabilities as a result of a golf ball strike is just a bit puzzling to me, if nothing else, it's at least news to me. If you could replicate the power of a golf ball strike into getting hit w/ that hammer, a person should be able to take a hit on MOST parts of the body w/ no lingering effects at all. Take a strike on the bony parts of the body, however, is a different story. Bruise? Yes. Broken bones? 99% of the time, the answer has to be NO.

[keb]

To me it doesn't matter what else was in the argument. The fact that the judge said this one was valid is what bothers me.

The judge did not say the claim is valid. The judge detemined that could not say as a matter of law it was invaliid and that issue had to be determined by the jury. Our legal system provides for the right of a jury of our peers to resolve these issues and not just one judge.

[zeg]

The judge did not say the claim is valid. The judge detemined that could not say as a matter of law it was invaliid and that issue had to be determined by the jury. Our legal system provides for the right of a jury of our peers to resolve these issues and not just one judge.

Yes, exactly! It takes an actual trial to decide a lawsuit. The only way it can be tossed if there is absolutely no way for the suit to succeed as a matter of law, as you say, or perhaps considering facts that are accepted by both sides of the suit. If there's any conflict, then facts need to be established through trial. Thus, if there is any conceivable situation where the golfer would be at fault, there will need to be a trial. As a very simple (but perhaps sufficient) example, if the golfer was rip-roarin' drunk and aiming at the woman's front yard, that might very reasonably make him liable. Has it been established before the court that he was, in fact, aiming at the fairway? If not, that is something that needs to be determined in trial, not simply decided by the judge.

[iacas]

I'll concede about the paintball, LOL. But, in instances of bladed and pitched shots, the speed of the ball has to be a bit greater than 55 mph to be able to break orbital bones and tear muscles.

No, it doesn't. The guy was 60+ years old. A ball going half as fast might have done significant damage.

Since this discussion is about the legal side and not the physics, that's the last we'll talk of the physics.

[zrlaegel]

you are responsible for maintaining control of you equipment. similar to if you crash into someone while snowboarding. but, one way or another its a bullish lawsuit

[TakeDeadAim]

Yeah, I don't see it that way.

Wow. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I am saying that accidents happen. A golf course is a likely environment for accidents to happen. Hence my suggestion that a place, such as a golf course, where accidents may (and do) occur, should carry some kind of liability coverage for such incidents. Another "more common sense" approach would force an owner of a house near such environments to carry such insurance. BUT, in no case should a golf player be liable for accidents occured during the regular development of golf. In Europe they solve all these scenarios by forcing players to be federated (licensed) the the National Golf Federation. If you are licensed, you and the golf couse are covered. If you are not, the course is at fault.

[Fourputt]

"...negligent by failing to properly execute the swing of his golf club"

To me it doesn't matter what else was in the argument. The fact that the judge said this one was valid is what bothers me.

And if that becomes a legal ruling, then I'm glad that I'll be moving out of the country in a few years.

The judge did not say the claim is valid. The judge detemined that could not say as a matter of law it was invaliid and that issue had to be determined by the jury. Our legal system provides for the right of a jury of our peers to resolve these issues and not just one judge.

Laws like this which are written to put the onus of guilt on the golfer until proven otherwise are part to problem with the US legal system (and apparently elsewhere too). It seems to have gotten to the point where you can be sued for just about anything any more. There never seems to be any case where the logical path of implied risk would automatically quash such a suit before it gets started. Instead the guy who was just playing a innocent round of golf has to take the time and expense of a legal battle to support a position which should be a given in the first place. Negligence is one thing, pure accident is something else. I don't think I ever heard of anyone suing Jerry Ford when he was annually bombing spectators in pro-ams.

In my humble layman's opinion, the person who bought the house along the golf course is more negligent for ignoring the inherent risk than the player who accidentally hit a poor shot at just the wrong time.