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

[Abu3baid]

This is the line of thinking that is ruining the court system. I don't think there has ever been a situation I've thought about or been involved in, where the idea of filing a lawsuit came into my mind. The idea to sue for what is clearly an accident is just plain wrong. I hope one day you get put in a similar situation, then you might understand how these things end up ruining peoples lives, you might think differently after that.

Yes, I can see how getting smashed in the face "by accident" can ruin lives as well no? What do you say to that person? Suck it up? And you hoping that I get in a situation where my life gets ruined is rather peculiar..

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abu3baid

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

And people wonder why divorce rates are so high in California. . .

The husband clearly should have been the intended target.

Let me tell you about the time my wife hit me with her golf shot. I could swear it was intentional but I digress.

The lawsuit is very likely a frivolous one but I can appreciate Abu playing devil's advocate on this one.   For all I know, the lady could have been seriously injured and could not be intimate with her husband.   But is that worth half a mil?    Wait, how long have they been married?

[Abu3baid]

Let me tell you about the time my wife hit me with her golf shot. I could swear it was intentional but I digress. The lawsuit is very likely a frivolous one but I can appreciate Abu playing devil's advocate on this one.   For all I know, the lady could have been seriously injured and could not be intimate with her husband.   But is that worth half a mil?    Wait, how long have they been married?   ;-)

LOL.. It is worth a lot more.. I'm pretty sure there are cases that can be cited I'm just too lazy to look for it :)

[todgot]

Most communities where there are golf course do not want huge nets surrounding the golf course perimeter because they look unappealing. Even if they were approved to install nets, how high do you place the nets, 15 feet, 20 feet, 40 feet?   What happens is you have nets and someone still hits the ball over the net?

Actually if you make an effort to mitigate risk by erecting a barrier or putting up signs you are increasing your liability. Basically, you're acknowledging the existence of the risk and have taken steps to limit it but obviously not enough if there is an injury. Then, of course, you have to make sure you maintain the fence to keep it effective. A blow to the head by a golf ball can cause significant and long lasting injuries... a traumatic brain injury or TBI such as a concussion. The effects may last a few weeks or years and every brain injury is different. It's hard to say the damages ask for are not justified without knowing more about the case. How much is your ability to think, concentrate or remember things worth? How much are chronic daily Headaches worth? It's an interesting legal question but I think she may have a case and it will go to trial unless they settle out of court. If she were walking on the course I think there would be no case. I don't think there is a case against the golfer because courts have ruled a golfer cannot be held responsible for damages by not controlling the ball... as long as it wasn't an intentional or negligent act.

[westerndevon]

Similar thing happened here, a local course was refused planning by resident petition to allow the course to raise the height of the net/fence on the boundary to neighbouring properties then one of the same residents that objected tried to Sue when she was struck by a stray ball in her garden

[jamo]

This whole thread is people talking past each other.

[todgot]

This whole thread is people talking past each other.

I wish I could think of something witty to say which would be talking past you... but it's Friday and my brain is fried.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/82461/woman-hit-by-errant-golf-ball-sues-oregon-course-ap/36#post_1153589"]   [QUOTE name="Abu3baid" url="/t/82461/woman-hit-by-errant-golf-ball-sues-oregon-course-ap/18#post_1153425"]   [QUOTE name="rkim291968" url="/t/82461/woman-hit-by-errant-golf-ball-sues-oregon-course-ap/20_20#post_1153421"]   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. [/QUOTE] 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?[/QUOTE] And people wonder why divorce rates are so high in California. . . The husband clearly should have been the intended target.[/QUOTE] Let me tell you about the time my wife hit me with her golf shot. I could swear it was intentional but I digress. The lawsuit is very likely a frivolous one but I can appreciate Abu playing devil's advocate on this one.   For all I know, the lady could have been seriously injured and could not be intimate with her husband.   But is that worth half a mil?    Wait, how long have they been married?   ;-)

Half a million for lack of sex for a few months does seem a bit excessive, but it just goes to show how people have no sense of values and what marriage is about. I would be supporting her through her lawsuit and this crisis instead of thinking about frivolous stuff that detracts from her lawsuit. What a selfish idiot. . .

[k-troop]

Half a million for lack of sex for a few months does seem a bit excessive, but it just goes to show how people have no sense of values and what marriage is about. I would be supporting her through her lawsuit and this crisis instead of thinking about frivolous stuff that detracts from her lawsuit.

What a selfish idiot. . .

Loss of consortium isn't just loss of sex, though that is a component.  It's loss of the benefit of the marital relationship.  It's an antiquated, patriarchal measure of damages, but it's a part of nearly every lawsuit that includes injuries.  Most states require the plaintiff to plead specifically the types of damages they're seeking--if you don't plead it then you've waived it.

Furthermore, I doubt the injured woman is suing for lack of sex.  Her lawyer drafted the pleadings and included that as a component of damages.  It could (in some cases) be malpractice on the attorney's part to not include consortium damages for a married client in an injury suit.  As far as the amount, that's likely just posturing for a settlement, which is how the PI system works.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Half a million for lack of sex for a few months does seem a bit excessive, but it just goes to show how people have no sense of values and what marriage is about. I would be supporting her through her lawsuit and this crisis instead of thinking about frivolous stuff that detracts from her lawsuit.

What a selfish idiot. . .

Loss of consortium isn't just loss of sex, though that is a component.  It's loss of the benefit of the marital relationship.  It's an antiquated, patriarchal measure of damages, but it's a part of nearly every lawsuit that includes injuries.  Most states require the plaintiff to plead specifically the types of damages they're seeking--if you don't plead it then you've waived it.

Furthermore, I doubt the injured woman is suing for lack of sex.  Her lawyer drafted the pleadings and included that as a component of damages.  It could (in some cases) be malpractice on the attorney's part to not include consortium damages for a married client in an injury suit.  As far as the amount, that's likely just posturing for a settlement, which is how the PI system works.

Good information.

I just can't understand why a lawyer could be sued for malpractice for not adding such a ridiculous addition to the suit, and why is there such a disparity between what is reasonable and what is used for posturing?

My guess is the Woman might end up with $5000 damages or something like that?

[k-troop]

Good information.

I just can't understand why a lawyer could be sued for malpractice for not adding such a ridiculous addition to the suit, and why is there such a disparity between what is reasonable and what is used for posturing?

My guess is the Woman might end up with $5000 damages or something like that?

As for your first question, the facts that would constitute a claim for consortium are fairly well defined in case law.  If a married plaintiff's injuries prevent the non-injured spouse from enjoying the services of the injured spouse, then they have a claim for consortium--the only issue is that of damages (and of course, liability).  The attorney's obligation would be to inform the client of the right to claim loss of consortium and add it to the pleading unless the client affirmatively waives it.  To simply leave it off when the facts (as pled) raise it would be malpractice.  Loss of consortium is a well-recognized basis of damages in injury cases.  A typical injury case will include many types of damages, including property damage, medical bills (present and future), lost wages (present and future), pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and in extreme cases punitive damages.

As to the amount of damages, we don't know the facts of the case.  We also didn't know the facts of the McDonald's coffee case, the BMW paint job case, or many other cases while they were pre-trial.  (And many cases we will never know the facts.)  Attorneys also have an obligation not to file frivolous suits or make unsupported claims for damages, though this rule is less respected.

I generally find it unwise to judge litigation that I'm not a part of.  I have tried cases that have been reported in the media, and the media tends to get the facts mostly wrong (or emphasize facts that are largely irrelevant to the case).  I have a very difficult time questioning jury verdicts.  Juries are reasonable people:  even if individually some of them are whackos, as a group of 12 I trust them to make prudent judgments.

[dkolo]

Ultimately, liability has to attach to the golf course, if not the golfer. Golf balls going onto public sidewalks or streets are risks that are inherent with golf courses near such places, but I don't see how it's good public policy to put costs onto the pedestrians / drivers. You're driving or walking through an unfamiliar area, on a highway adjacent to a course, perhaps an area where the course isn't visible, how is the person expected to bear the costs? Mishits happen, Taylormade taught us that. Risks associated with them have to be priced into the cost of doing business by the golf course. Putting the liability on the golf course encourages them to take all measures they deem necessary to protect passers-by. This way, the law needn't concern itself with what measures the course should undertake. The course can do a cost/benefit analysis and balance the costs of measures vs the costs of remaining risk. It's economically and legally efficient.