Woman hit by errant golf ball sues Oregon course [AP]

[The Recreational Golfer]

My son works in the insurance industry and has handled a number of cases like this. His comments were that the suit has no merit because of the Assumption of Risk doctrine that applies when you're near a golf course. You should know that an errant golf ball can leave the course, and that the course is not expected to build a fence around it to prevent this from happening. If the errant ball came from a driving range, that would be different. Then a barrier is expected.

Second, the suit was filed in a small coastal town where everyone knows everyone else. Unlike the city where my son worked, Portland, which is quite litigious and plaintiff friendly, a local jury isn't going to take this suit, filed by a Californian, too kindly.

Finally, the damages include loss of consortium (sex). Lawyers throw this in just because, and it is usually a big mistake. Juries see it as a frivolous add-on, which casts the entire suit in a lesser light.

What will probably happen is the course will pay $2,000 to make the woman go away, or win on Summary Judgement because the plaintiff cannot prove liability, meaning she gets nothing and the suit gets thrown out before it gets to trial.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

That coffee one sounds nasty mind you - can confirm from experience that coffee isn't served close to that hot at McDonalds over here.

Can you confirm that it wasn't served that hot prior to the incident described? Because that's the event that caused them to change the temperature they serve it at.

Nope, afraid it's just that I got served coffee that was far from scolding on the only occasions I've had it which is not often :)

Looking at cases over here it would seem that McDonalds didn't reduce the temperature of hot drinks as they did in the States, guess I was just unlucky. Just to bear out what I said about common sense being applied by the judiciary though, McDonalds has been taken to court over this issue here on a few occasions, each time it was thrown out. Eventually a case went before the High court, details are here if you're interested:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html&query;=bogle+and+mcdonalds&method;=boolean

To save you reading through it all the Judge's conclusion was

Conclusion

1. The burns suffered by many of the claimants were serious, involving severe pain and skin grafts. I have taken this carefully into account whilst considering the issues I have to determine. However, for the reasons given above, I answer “No” to all of the preliminary issues; the allegations contained in those issues that McDonald’s are legally liable for these unfortunate injuries have not been made out.

Earlier in the court paper the Judge basically says that hot drinks are supposed to be hot and that a warning on the cup stating 'Caution - Hot!' is a sufficient warning to be careful. This case was after the one mentioned earlier in the States.

[Nosevi]

My son works in the insurance industry and has handled a number of cases like this. His comments were that the suit has no merit because of the Assumption of Risk doctrine that applies when you're near a golf course. You should know that an errant golf ball can leave the course, and that the course is not expected to build a fence around it to prevent this from happening. If the errant ball came from a driving range, that would be different. Then a barrier is expected.

Second, the suit was filed in a small coastal town where everyone knows everyone else. Unlike the city where my son worked, Portland, which is quite litigious and plaintiff friendly, a local jury isn't going to take this suit, filed by a Californian, too kindly.

Finally, the damages include loss of consortium (sex). Lawyers throw this in just because, and it is usually a big mistake. Juries see it as a frivolous add-on, which casts the entire suit in a lesser light.

What will probably happen is the course will pay $2,000 to make the woman go away, or win on Summary Judgement because the plaintiff cannot prove liability, meaning she gets nothing and the suit gets thrown out before it gets to trial.

Sounds like common sense exists over there too :)

[turtleback]

They should just put up signs around the course warning pedestrians and cars. If a person is passing a golf course it is reasonable that there could be errant shots.

The lawsuit is unfair to the golfer, as he did not do it on purpose.

My opinion is that without proof of intent and obvious negligence on the part of the golfer or golf course this case should get thrown out.

IANAL, but I believe you are still responsible for damage you do even if you did not do it on purpose, there is no intent, and there is no negligence.  Those factors would bear on criminal responsibility (of which there is none, here) but not civil responsibility.

[ghalfaire]

My son works in the insurance industry and has handled a number of cases like this. His comments were that the suit has no merit because of the Assumption of Risk doctrine that applies when you're near a golf course. You should know that an errant golf ball can leave the course, and that the course is not expected to build a fence around it to prevent this from happening. If the errant ball came from a driving range, that would be different. Then a barrier is expected.

My personal experience has been it is not all that "cut and dried" as assumption of risk.  What if neither the lady or her husband were golfers or have any detailed knowledge of the game? There is also an assumption by insurance companies that their clients do "due diligence" in mitigating the risks associated with their business. So putting up sign that warn golfers they are responsible for errant shots and maybe on the fence warning pedestrians to watch out for errant shots would certainly be a step in the right direction.  I know some courses that line the fences next to roads/sidewalks with tall mature trees in attempt to intercept errant shot before they leave the property.  Certainly if a golfer hits another golfer on the course an assumption of risk is in play.  Not necessarily so for a non participant, not on the property where the ball came from, who is just walking along minding their own business.

None of this is to say I think the claim is legitimate or that if legitimate that $900,000 is a reasonable amount of compensation.  But just like the McDonald case things are not always as simple as they first seem.

[rstyle]

Golf insurance................ Nothing turns on lawyers more than the word insurance. The larger the policy, the more they drool for their 40% they get for all the, pain, suffering, lack of sex etc ( none of which they can quantify). In Florida they had a "malpractice crisis" with a large number of lawsuits and every doctor was carrying 2-4 million in coverage. The issue could not be solved by the legislators ( all lawyers) but was solved by the physicians dropping their coverage to a max 250k. Suddenly the interest in attorneys pursuing lawsuits dropped Insurance is not always the solution but laws like the one our friends in U.K. have ( you lose, you pay for both parties) would certainly help

[JonMA1]

The 13th hole at my local course runs parallel to a highway. I've always assumed I'd be held responsible for any automobile damage should I hook one onto traffic. I don't think this because I know anything about the law, it just seems like common sense. I've never really worried about hitting a pedestrian but I would have thought the same common sense applies. Seems like people should be able to walk or drive a public road and not worry about being struck with a golf ball.

As far as the dollar amount noted in the article... yeah, that's just ridiculous.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

They should just put up signs around the course warning pedestrians and cars. If a person is passing a golf course it is reasonable that there could be errant shots.

The lawsuit is unfair to the golfer, as he did not do it on purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

My opinion is that without proof of intent and obvious negligence on the part of the golfer or golf course this case should get thrown out.

IANAL, but I believe you are still responsible for damage you do even if you did not do it on purpose, there is no intent, and there is no negligence.  Those factors would bear on criminal responsibility (of which there is none, here) but not civil responsibility.

True, but it is the couple's civil responsibility is to be wary of what is going on at the course to avoid injury as in the case of many other "dangerous activities" such as not walking in the middle of the road to avoid oncoming traffic? There is at least a minimum responsibility to the couple who ventured out next to a golf course, it's understood that there will possibly be errant golf balls.

The golfer was simply doing what he should have been doing, trying his best to play the game.

[joekelly]

Wow, so many blaming the OB walkers for being in the way of the errant golf ball.

When you hit the ball into the water, you pay the price.  A penalty stroke.  When you hit the ball OB, off the property, and that ball breaks someones jawbone, you pay the price of repair.  Seems totally fair to me.  Whether the course has any liability is unknown to me coz the off property,  public, walkway may indeed be in jeopardy by being very close to oblivious pedestrians, kids on bikes, motorcars, etc.  If the course has seen many balls hit into the same area, the off property, then the course should have foreseen the trouble and erected barriers.   IMO, the walkers are blameless, have suffered injury.

My parked car, on the property, near the practice area was struck by an errant ball from a teenager (probably). Large rear window broken to bits.  The course management told me to bring complaint to boy and the course was totally blameless. I could not identify the boy. I accepted the risk by putting the car in harm's way, anyplace on the property.

The hot coffee lawsuit is totally OFF TOPIC.

[Lihu]

Wow, so many blaming the OB walkers for being in the way of the errant golf ball.

When you hit the ball into the water, you pay the price.  A penalty stroke.  When you hit the ball OB, off the property, and that ball breaks someones jawbone, you pay the price of repair.  Seems totally fair to me.  Whether the course has any liability is unknown to me coz the off property,  public, walkway may indeed be in jeopardy by being very close to oblivious pedestrians, kids on bikes, motorcars, etc.  If the course has seen many balls hit into the same area, the off property, then the course should have foreseen the trouble and erected barriers.   IMO, the walkers are blameless, have suffered injury.

My parked car, on the property, near the practice area was struck by an errant ball from a teenager (probably). Large rear window broken to bits.  The course management told me to bring complaint to boy and the course was totally blameless. I could not identify the boy. I accepted the risk by putting the car in harm's way, anyplace on the property.

The hot coffee lawsuit is totally OFF TOPIC.

Not sure this is entirely correct? They knew there is a remote possibility of getting struck by a ball, just like walking out in a thunderstorm there is a chance of getting struck by lightning.

[Shindig]

Not sure this is entirely correct? They knew there is a remote possibility of getting struck by a ball, just like walking out in a thunderstorm there is a chance of getting struck by lightning.

Whether they knew or not, a reasonably prudent person would know, and that's the standard the courts typically hold.

[Abu3baid]

Whether they knew or not, a reasonably prudent person would know, and that's the standard the courts typically hold.

Before introducing my friend to golf he lived next to a golf course.. He didn't know that's what it was till after he started playing.. On another note, if I am walking on a public walkway shouldn't I have reasonable expectation that I won't be hit by any errant objects? Golf balls or otherwise?

[krupa]

On another note, if I am walking on a public walkway shouldn't I have reasonable expectation that I won't be hit by any errant objects? Golf balls or otherwise?

Maybe you made a poor choice in words, but  "errant" objects by definition are off course.  So no, I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of not getting hit by one, especially if you're near an area where people who are putting things in the air.

If you're walking near an active softball field, you have a reasonable expectation that no one will intentionally hit a ball at you but that doesn't mean someone won't hit a foul ball over the fence and plunk you on the head.

[Abu3baid]

Maybe you made a poor choice in words, but  "errant" objects by definition are off course.  So no, I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of not getting hit by one, especially if you're near an area where people who are putting things in the air.

If you're walking near an active softball field, you have a reasonable expectation that no one will intentionally hit a ball at you but that doesn't mean someone won't hit a foul ball over the fence and plunk you on the head.

I'm not sure.. that is what I meant, an object that is off its intended course.. My expectation is that if I am in a public walkway or  sidewalk or what ever that I won't get plunked in the head by a golf ball or anything else..

For example, there is a golf course that I can see while driving on one of our highways here, if I am driving and a golf ball goes through my windshield no one can say well you should have known that since you are driving through an area where there is a golf course that you have a reasonable expectation to get a broken window?

If I am walking near an active softball field, I without a doubt have a reasonable expectation that no one will hit him intentionally or unintentionally.. If the park can't protect people who aren't watching or participating then they should bear the consequence of the lawsuit..

notice I am differentiating between private way and public way.. on a public walkway I have certain expectations..  just like if I was walking downtown with a whole bunch of balkonies above me I have a reasonable expectation that nothing is going to slip or accidentally be pushed off of them and get hit on the head.. although one might say, hey you should have reasonable expectation that something like that could happen?

[Jeremie Boop]

I'm not sure.. that is what I meant, an object that is off its intended course.. My expectation is that if I am in a public walkway or  sidewalk or what ever that I won't get plunked in the head by a golf ball or anything else..

For example, there is a golf course that I can see while driving on one of our highways here, if I am driving and a golf ball goes through my windshield no one can say well you should have known that since you are driving through an area where there is a golf course that you have a reasonable expectation to get a broken window?

If I am walking near an active softball field, I without a doubt have a reasonable expectation that no one will hit him intentionally or unintentionally.. If the park can't protect people who aren't watching or participating then they should bear the consequence of the lawsuit..

notice I am differentiating between private way and public way.. on a public walkway I have certain expectations..  just like if I was walking downtown with a whole bunch of balkonies above me I have a reasonable expectation that nothing is going to slip or accidentally be pushed off of them and get hit on the head.. although one might say, hey you should have reasonable expectation that something like that could happen?

I absolutely am on the lookout for golf balls any time I'm travelling near a golf course, just as I'm observant if I'm anywhere near a ball diamond. Perhaps it's because I know from experience that a ball could come from those areas at any moment. I guess it's a difference in mindset, I expect that there's an inherent risk and you expect that you are inherently safe.

[Abu3baid]

I absolutely am on the lookout for golf balls any time I'm travelling near a golf course, just as I'm observant if I'm anywhere near a ball diamond. Perhaps it's because I know from experience that a ball could come from those areas at any moment. I guess it's a difference in mindset, I expect that there's an inherent risk and you expect that you are inherently safe.

I am with you on this, but I'm not talking about the both of us.. we play golf, I probably hit too many balls into places I probably should have never hit them.. I know what can happen..

I am talking about the average person here walking on the public walkway.. we can't build expectations of others on what you and I do..

Reasonable expectation for a normal person is that he should not get hit by anything.. we can take a step further.. if I am on the look out for it, and I hear the guy say fore and I put my head down, and then I take a quick peak and the ball bounces off the walkway and smashes my front 4 teeth.. no one can say, hey you knew there was a golf course there, next time don't walk down that road right?

[rkim291968]

Paying for injured person's hospital bill, etc. is ok.   As a golfer, if I injure someone or damage one's property, I will have to pay.   $900k (including about 1/2 million to husband) claim is a total BS.

[Abu3baid]

Paying for injured person's hospital bill, etc. is ok.   As a golfer, if I injure someone or damage one's property, I will have to pay.   $900k (including about 1/2 million to husband) claim is a total BS.

I am not sure the validity of the case either.. however, what if the incident has really had an impact on their relationship?  The husband has been impacted in that case and has a legitimate claim doesn't he?