Negligence if your ball hits someone off the course?

[keb]

So the lady who is gardening in her own yard should shoulder the entire burden of the medical expenses, pain and permanent impairment?

[nike_golf]

So the lady who is gardening in her own yard should shoulder the entire burden of the medical expenses, pain and permanent impairment?

Part of her home insurance should cover anything related to getting hurt in relation to the golf course.

And may I add. What possible permanent impairment can there be from getting hit w/ a golf ball? I hear all this talk of people getting seriously injured. I simply ask, how? I know a golf ball is hard, and it can hurt, but we're not talking about getting hit w/ a stray bullet or projectile or something. Not terribly long ago I played quite a bit of paint ball. The only protection you would wear is goggles over your eyes. Those things hurt. I can't imagine a golf ball being much worse, if at all, than a paint ball being shot at you from a high powered CO2 gun. I would get some nice sized welts, but that was about the extent of the "injuries".

[PS90]

DocWu or anyone else,

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?

It would seem like they would be in a predicament, considering that most people who live right next to a golf course are often long-term members of the course, so they may side with the homeowner.

But, at the same time, if they do side with the home owner, then they might be afraid of losing other members, who are worried about playing golf on their course with the potential liability this lawsuit may create.

Of course, they could just be Switzerland on the whole issue.

I'm just curious to know what a golf course's stance on a legal issue like this would be.

[iacas]

Not terribly long ago I played quite a bit of paint ball. The only protection you would wear is goggles over your eyes. Those things hurt. I can't imagine a golf ball being much worse, if at all, than a paint ball being shot at you from a high powered CO2 gun. I would get some nice sized welts, but that was about the extent of the "injuries".

Uh, what?

I know a guy who lost an eye after he was clipped with a shank on a shot from a guy 50 yards from the green. It's not like he dove in front of a tee shot. A ball coming down out of the sky has plenty of speed. Balls reach a height of 30 yards and are falling at about 55 MPH when they land (plus any forward velocity). 1.62 ounces * 55^2 is gonna hurt. A paint ball weighs 0.12 ounces. So even if we say the thing's moving at 150 MPH (a stretch - they lose speed very quickly and 205 the highest legal muzzle velocity), you've got (keeping the same units): 1.62 * 55^2 ~= 4900 0.12 * 150^2 ~= 2700 A golf ball is gonna pack almost twice the punch of a paint ball pellet. And that's the heaviest paint ball not far from the muzzle.

[murphmjm]

When we were playing as kids my brother fractured his skull slightly after being hit in the head with a golf ball, they do hurt and if in the right spot can do some nice damage.

[MrKadash]

What possible permanent impairment can there be from getting hit w/ a golf ball? I hear all this talk of people getting seriously injured.

It doesn't have to be permanent to be serious. I won't get into what I've seen over the years, but permanent impairment wasn't the immediate worry when they happened.

[Shanks A Million]

Yeah, but you live on a golf course, don't expect people won't play golf. I live on the water, do you think I try to sue boaters for causing wake that causes my boat to rock? That would be laughed right out of court! It's not like this woman was gardening in her backyard, and whomp! , a golf course suddenly falls out of the sky. Be serious people, a golf course is a luxury, you pay extra to live on one.

I see this all the time, people choose to live on a golf course, yet are just stunned when they find out not everyone can control their golf ball that well. If that isn't stupid, what is?

[nike_golf]

Uh, what?

Just as I started to read that I was thinking I had to go look up some figures, but then I kept reading and saw that you did that. LOL, good work.

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. The human body is going to absorb and handle a bigger object moving at a slower rate better than a smaller object at a faster rate, MOST OF THE TIME. It of course depends on what objects you're talking about. In this case, I would rather get hit w/ a golf ball going 55 than a paint ball going 150. Not long ago I was a huge baseball player. A SLOW breaking ball is about 60 mph. Getting hit w/ the ball going that slow doesn't even leave a mark. 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.

[Shanks A Million]

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

I'm going to assume you've never been hit by a golf ball then.

But still, a golf ball doesn't have as much energy as even a small bullet. A golf ball at 55 mph carries 13.6 joules of energy, while a .22 caliber bullet carries around 203.5 joules of energy. Quite a difference.

[Clambake]

I wonder what would happen in this case. There is a city road that runs parallel to a fairway on my course. I saw a golfer hit out of bounds into the road and bust a car window. The guy stopped and the golfer gave him insurance info and he paid(or insurance) for the guys window. I wonder what would be the liability in this situation if the driver ran off the road and was killed?

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.

This case may indeed seem frivolous, and it will very likely be ruled in favor of the golfer, but our legal tort system does allow people to seek damages if they believe they have been wronged. It is unfortunate that the poor golfer will have to go through this, but that is part of the price we pay for having a system that has very specific rules and directions and yet is open to all. If those rules failed, our legal system could be gradually shifted in directions that would likely favor only the wealthy and powerful or nefarious special interests. There is probably too much of that anyway, but the system does work amazingly well given the motivations and frailities of all involved. While some here are condemming the judge here, I think there needs to be a better understanding of the judge's duties at this stage in a lawsuit. The judge has to determine if the filed lawsuit meets the basic standards of law and if there are any unambiguous points which can be resolved he can rule on those claims, but if there are any potential open issues he/she must allow the case to proceed to allow both sides to present their position on those ambiguities. In this case, it appears that the judge disallowed one of the claims about the golfer not providing warning, as it was apparently resolved to the court's satisfaction that the golfer or someone in his party had indeed provided such warning. However, the claims that the golfer performed in a negligent manner cannot be determined at this stage and the judge has no choice but to allow it to proceed so it can be properly litigated. The judge's actions here have nothing to do with him/her being liberal or conservative, but simply a case of them doing their job under very clear legal guidelines. If he/she were to do otherwise, they would be negligent in their own sworn duty by prematurely making a legal ruling without the necessary information from both sides.

[nike_golf]

I'm going to assume you've never been hit by a golf ball then.

Well, no, I haven't. I'm going to assume you've never been hit by a paintball shot out of a high powered CO2 gun either. LOL. Go back to my baseball analogy. A baseball is qutie a bit bigger than a golf ball. Getting hit w/ a baseball going 60 mph doesn't really hurt nor does much of any kind of damage. Would it hurt on the bare head? Yes, but other than there, I can't see it doing much of any kind of damage to anyone.

Comparing a golf ball to a bullet, which gets fired out of a gun is quite the comparison to say the least, LOL. That bullet is going anywhere from 1200 to 1500 feet per second and is designed to penetrate. LOL. When I made the speed and projectile argument, I left bullets out of the comparison for a reason.

[shaun]

And may I add. What possible permanent impairment can there be from getting hit w/ a golf ball? I hear all this talk of people getting seriously injured.

Nope, you're very wrong. Here's an extract from the judgment I briefly summarised above (

Ollier v Magnetic Island Country Club Inc [2003] QSC 263), describing the injuries sustained by the plaintiff after he was struck in the head by a golf ball:

[61] On the day in question, the plaintiff continued to play golf after being struck and consumed some alcohol. He went to his home and told his wife that he had concussion. Because of her concern about his appearance, his slurred speech and his incoherence, she called the ambulance. He was taken on the ferry to Townsville where he was admitted to the hospital with decreased consciousness and dilated pupils on the left side. A left sided subdural haematoma and left sided cerebral oedema were apparent on a CT scan. A craniotomy was carried out and the haematoma evacuated. He spent some time in the intensive care unit and his postoperative recovery was complicated by episodes of pneumonia and plural effusion. [62] There was some improvement in his level of consciousness, vital signs and respiratory function over the following weeks but he has been left with very significant neuro cognitive deficits including a left hemiparesis, double incontinence and pervasive cognitive deficits with labile moods. [63] He was discharged from the hospital on 2 February 1995 and returned to Magnetic Island. His wife's statement (Exhibit 6(B)) details the difficulties which developed when she, together with her children, commenced to look after the plaintiff. The intensive nature of the care which he required took a toll on her health and it was necessary for some other arrangements to be made for him in order for Mrs Ollier to have a break. He went to the RSL home for one day and to the Garden Settlement for two days. On each occasion his behaviour was unacceptable. At one place he had a fall, and at the other he wandered onto the roadway. In each case, he was not permitted to remain. ... [65] In November 1998 he was admitted to the Townsville General Hospital for a brain scan, following which he was transferred to the Mossman Hall Special Hospital in Charters Towers. He was there for approximately three years with some relatively short breaks when he would go to his home at Magnetic Island. By this time the plaintiff's wife had the assistance of Blue Nurses to care for him when he was home. [66] In January 2002 the plaintiff was admitted to the Acquired Brain Injury Unit at Kirwan and he has been there since. [67] There is a report of Dr Karunakaran who is the director of the Kirwan Rehabilitation and Extended Treatment Service and who has responsibility for the Acquired Brain Injury Unit. He is a psychiatrist and has had the direct care of the plaintiff for some time. He says that the plaintiff has had some improved quality of life and improved general health since he has been at the Unit. I take from his report (which is Exhibit 5(G)) a statement of the plaintiff's disabilities and deficits: " Mobility: Mr Ollier has a left-sided hemiparesis (weakness) with decreased mobility. He mobilises with a four point stick. His balance is not stable and he is at some risk for falls. Indeed, he had a fall and suffered a fracture of the left forearm on 3/5/99. As he does not have insight into his disability, he requires constant supervision and prompting to attend to aspects of safety. He also needs physical assistance to negotiate stairs and for getting in and out of vehicles. Bowel and Bladder: Mr Ollier is incontinent of bladder and bowel. Structuring of his toilet habits and careful attention to his food and fluid intake has decreased the number of soiling episodes. However, this remains an activity requiring supervision and assistance. Feeding: Mr Ollier is able to feed himself when provided with food on a plate. However, he is not able to regulate it at an appropriate speed and often tends to choke or aspirate. Therefore he needs supervision during feeding time. Dressing, grooming and bathing: Constant supervision and assistance is needed during these activities. Behaviour: Mr Ollier tends to be intrusive and at times challenging to manage. He constantly demands cigarettes and needs to be redirected. Left to himself he is likely to smoke continuously. He displays high impulsivity and is prone to verbal aggression when frustrated. Also reported are instances of physically aggressive behaviour including pushing and striking out. As he lacks insight into his disability he requires supervision and assistance to ensure personal safety particularly during transport and in public places. I should emphasise that from a carer's perspective perhaps the most difficult problem is that of his intrusive behaviour. He seeks attention and makes requests incessantly, and is prone to anger outbursts when frustrated. Cognition: Mr Ollier has pervasive cognitive deficits. His last Mini Mental State Examination, carried out on 26 March 2003, showed a score of 15 out of 30. This is in the severely impaired range. Mr Ollier's attention span is poor and he remains easily distractible. He is somewhat disorientated in time and place. He has the ability to recognise his family members and long-term acquaintances. Mr Ollier's memory is severely impaired with very limited ability for delayed recall. This means he cannot easily learn and retain new material. This has greatly hampered his rehabilitation and explains the need for constant supervision and prompting. Mr Ollier has impaired `frontal executive functioning'. This is reflected in his impaired ability to plan, sequence, reason and adapt. He has `set shifting difficulty' and tends to persevere with themes. This explains, at least in part, the incessant nature of his requests and the intrusive nature of his behaviour. The frontal lobe injury has also resulted in subtle personality changes. From what was described as a pleasant and even-tempered personality, he has become somewhat labile and irritable." [68] The plaintiff has limited or no insight into his condition. However it is clear from the evidence of Dr James, a psychiatrist and Dr Likely, also a psychiatrist, Mr Walkley, a psychologist, as well as Ms McQueen, who is the clinical nurse consultant at the Unit, that the plaintiff is aware of his surroundings and acutely feels the loss of his home and being away from his family. He has of recent times spent some short periods at Magnetic Island and appears to enjoy this. It appears he has expressed a desire to live with his family. It seems that he is, according to Dr James, suffering from some unrealistic expectations of what a return to full time living on the island might mean to him. Nonetheless the evidence would suggest that being at home has some beneficial effect upon his moods and his behaviour. Employees of the Unit have taken him to visit a hospice recently and it appears that being amongst elderly people caused him some distress, resulting in his demanding that he be taken back to the Unit.

By the way, the second defendant in this case was an individual -- he was the guy that hit the ball -- and he was ordered to pay over $2 million in damages.

[zeg]

While some here are condemming the judge here, I think there needs to be a better understanding of the judge's duties at this stage in a lawsuit. The judge has to determine if the filed lawsuit meets the basic standards of law and if there are any unambiguous points which can be resolved he can rule on those claims, but if there are any potential open issues he/she

EXACTLY.

Well, no, I haven't. I'm going to assume you've never been hit by a paintball shot out of a high powered CO2 gun either. LOL. Go back to my baseball analogy. A baseball is qutie a bit bigger than a golf ball. Getting hit w/ a baseball going 60 mph doesn't really hurt nor does much of any kind of damage. Would it hurt on the bare head? Yes, but other than there, I can't see it doing much of any kind of damage to anyone.

There's a reason baseball players wear helmets. Even a slow baseball to the head with no helmet can do real damage. Further, a baseball is very soft compared to a golf ball. As a result it's going to absorb a lot of the impact which means your body doesn't have to. A golf ball, on the other hand, is carefully engineered to be very hard and to bounce as much as possible. When it bounces it imparts even more force than it would otherwise, since it's got to slow itself to a stop, then accelerate in the other direction. So if it hits something hard (like a skull) it's going to do a lot more damage, and in any case it's going to pack a lot more punch into a small area than a baseball would.

As for a paintball, those are even softer still, and generally burst on impact, dissipating a lot of their energy that way. If they don't burst, they still deform pretty severely, so just like the baseball they're absorbing the impact for you. In any case, whether or not it makes sense to you, golf balls can and do cause real injuries when they hit people.

[nike_golf]

Nope, you're very wrong. Here's an extract from the judgment I briefly summarised above (

A golf ball can do this to a person, but yet, Troy Aikman and Steve Young, both with multiple concussions between them, are TV analysts today.

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.

[nike_golf]

EXACTLY.

Sure, I understand what you're saying. Look, a golf ball would hurt. I never disputed that. Hearing about all of this damage they can potentially do is what I'm having a hard time believing.

[sacm3bill]

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

The judge allowed the case to continue based on the perceived legitimacy of that claim by the defendent.

IMO, that's the point at which the argument of "The judge is only doing his job" breaks down.

[ET-Taylor]

You can compare a golf ball to a bullet my golf ball goes as straight as a bullet

[nike_golf]

You can compare a golf ball to a bullet my golf ball goes as straight as a bullet

I like that.