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

[nevets88]

Wonder if insurance covers this. I'm guessing not as the woman struck must have been walking outside the course.

Quote:

A California woman and her husband seek $900,000 in a lawsuit alleging she suffered serious injuries when struck by an errant golf ball while visiting the Oregon coast two summers ago.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Woman-hit-by-errant-golf-ball-sues-Oregon-course-306379651.html

[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.

[Pretzel]

It seems to me like that's similar to suing the weatherman for not warning you of hail. The golf course shouldn't have to specifically warn you that errant shots are a possibility.

[Lihu]

It seems to me like that's similar to suing the weatherman for not warning you of hail. The golf course shouldn't have to specifically warn you that errant shots are a possibility.

Ditto here, but putting up signs might alleviate some of the legal garbage? IDK for sure, but they post the dumbest signs around here. . .

[newtogolf]

I wasn't there, but the odds of getting hit by a golf ball 50 yards off the course has to be close to getting struck by lightning.

I didn't read anything that stated Joan was taken to the hospital or suffered any bruising or bleeding instead she's complaining about symptoms that cannot be medically confirmed.  Anyone can fake vertigo and claim to hear ringing in my ears for a big pay day in court.   $900,000 seems like a very strategic number most likely suggested by their lawyer to make it seem less like they were trying to cash in on an unfortunate accident.   I wonder what the ruling would be if someone got hit in the head by a foul ball that left a public ball park and hit them in a parking lot or street.  Are there real damages or is someone assuming the golfer and club have money and hoping to get a settlement.

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.

[nevets88]

Originally Posted by Lihu

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

How is that? Course is being sued.

[newtogolf]

How is that? Course is being sued.

I believe the course and golfer are being sued.

[Slowcelica]

It seems to me like that's similar to suing the weatherman for not warning you of hail. The golf course shouldn't have to specifically warn you that errant shots are a possibility.

Ha! We live in a world where people sue McDonald's for making them fat, and not putting warnings on cups that the coffee is hot.

[nevets88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevets88

How is that? Course is being sued.

I believe the course and golfer are being sued.

You're right. My mistake. Now I'm going to be more liberal w/yelling "Fore!"

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

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

How is that? Course is being sued.

IDK, you posted the article, I assumed you also read it.

[Nosevi]

Ha! We live in a world where people sue McDonald's for making them fat, and not putting warnings on cups that the coffee is hot.

Being harsh but nope - you live in a country where people sue McDonald's for making them fat and not putting warnings on cups that the coffee is hot. There is a subtle difference .........

[Phil McGleno]

Being harsh but nope - you live in a country where people sue McDonald's for making them fat and not putting warnings on cups that the coffee is hot. There is a subtle difference .........

You do not have any frivolous lawsuits in the UK? Also- [QUOTE]Perhaps the most famous "frivolous" lawsuit, Liebeck v. McDonald's is a case in which 80-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled a McDonald's coffee in her lap, causing third-degree burns on her legs, lap, and groin area. After she filed the lawsuit, many people criticized her without hearing the full story. After all, coffee is supposed to be hot. In reality, McDonalds has had over 700 complaints filed concerning the scalding temperatures of its coffee, which is served between 180 and 190 degrees for "optimum flavor." To put that in perspective, coffee at most restaurants is served at around 140 degrees. Liebeck tried to solicit McDonald's for a mere $800 to cover the skin grafts required for her injuries, but McDonald's refused.[/QUOTE]

[No Mulligans]

You do not have any frivolous lawsuits in the UK? Also-

Not so much as in the UK the losing party has to pay the legal fees of the other party.  Pretty much discourages frivolous lawsuits.

[Pretzel]

Ha! We live in a world where people sue McDonald's for making them fat, and not putting warnings on cups that the coffee is hot.

I was going to post what Phil did, but he beat me to it. The coffee was excessively hot in that case and causing severe injury, it wasn't a "whoops, burnt my tongue so now I have to sue" kind of deal.

[saevel25]

Me being the traffic engineer.

The only thing I see on that image is a bike lane, single lane in each direction for cars, and no walk for pedestrians.

Basically they were jaywalking on a roadway they had no right walking on. They should be cited a ticket.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

You do not have any frivolous lawsuits in the UK? Also-

Not so much as in the UK the losing party has to pay the legal fees of the other party.  Pretty much discourages frivolous lawsuits.

It was probably unfair of me to post that, Phil, we do have the odd daft lawsuit but nothing like the number you have over there. @No Mulligans is right, it's largely due to what he's posted above but also because the judges tend to just throw them out at the preliminary hearing stage, they apply a bit of common sense, so many cases never make it to court.

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

[joekelly]

I believe golf insurance, covering errant balls  which cause injury or damage, is available.  And at many courses i have seen signs posted on first tee box telling all that 'golfers are totally responsible for damage caused etc', the course suffers no liability under any circumstances.

[Shindig]

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 [i]prior[/i] to the incident described? Because that's the event that caused them to change the temperature they serve it at.