Kevin Stadler Slams Club, Club Breaks, Spectator Requires Stitches

[iacas]

A spectator was injured and required stitches after player Kevin Stadler's club head came loose and flew into the gallery Friday at a Web.com Tour event near Portland, Oregon.

Stadler, the son of former Masters champion Craig Stadler, was playing in the WinCo Foods Portland Open when he slammed his club to the turf in anger and up against his foot on the 15th hole of the second round.

More here: http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/24410189/spectator-hit-head-broken-club-webcom-event-requires-stitches

https://www.facebook.com/shaun.micheel/posts/1863323970630712

[Big C]

I just saw that myself. Really unfortunate but I’m glad the guy is ok. 

Stadler will probably take some heat for this, but at face value this just seems like a freak accident.

[dennyjones]

Is the player liable for that injury?

[Patch]

Report says he slammed his club into the turf, then his foot in anger. Yes, it's a freakish accident, that could have been prevented.

When someone gets hurt due someone else's loss of composure, anger in this instance, there are some issues that need to be resolved, and responsibility taken. 

12 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Is the player liable for that injury?

I'm no lawyer, but since this happened in a "fit of anger"  I would tend to believe there is some liability on the player's part. 

Of course it also depends on how the injured spectator feels about it. 

[Buckeyebowman]

Who caused the club to break? Stadler did! Admittedly if was a "freak" thing and there was no intentionality, but I don't think that matters.

I've been involved in traffic accidents where it certainly wasn't my intention to hit another car, but I did and it was my fault, despite the sub-zero temps and a "road" surface that you could ice skate on!

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, dennyjones said:

Is the player liable for that injury?

I'm guessing there's a liability release associated with every ticket.

[308 Ragin Cajun]

The tour sponsors and the PGA Tour are held harmless, but I don't know if it covers the player. Most cases of spectators injured .watching sporting events fall under the " Assumption of Risk Doctrine" where the spectator should know that if he enters an event where there are flying balls or other dangerous exposures, he is said to have "assumed the risk" just by purchasing a ticket and entering the premises. This probably varies depending upon the jurisdiction.

[Shindig]

1 hour ago, 308 Ragin Cajun said:

The tour sponsors and the PGA Tour are held harmless, but I don't know if it covers the player. Most cases of spectators injured .watching sporting events fall under the " Assumption of Risk Doctrine" where the spectator should know that if he enters an event where there are flying balls or other dangerous exposures, he is said to have "assumed the risk" just by purchasing a ticket and entering the premises. This probably varies depending upon the jurisdiction.

Sure, and that certainly covers things like hit by a ball in the landing area.  Hit by a club that fractured off?  I wonder -- that's certainly not a normal risk at a golf course.  And it isn't like a broken bat in baseball, because those aren't generally the result of player anger.

[JonMA1]

15 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Sure, and that certainly covers things like hit by a ball in the landing area.  Hit by a club that fractured off?  I wonder -- that's certainly not a normal risk at a golf course.  And it isn't like a broken bat in baseball, because those aren't generally the result of player anger.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It would surprise me if there was not some sort of settlement.

Edit: Then again, a visit by Stadler to the hospital and apology may be all that's needed. Not everyone files a law suit when they get injured.

Edited August 20, 2018 by JonMA1

[Missouri Swede]

40 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

This is exactly what I was thinking. It would surprise me if there was not some sort of settlement.

Edit: Then again, a visit by Stadler to the hospital and apology may be all that's needed. Not everyone files a law suit when they get injured.

No, but the health insurance company could go after him. I know when we get treated for injuries, we almost always get paperwork from our insurance company asking if anybody did anything to cause the injury.

[RussUK]

I think regardless of any financial outcome, what will hit Stadler the most is the fact that his actions caused someone a lot of pain. It could have been a lot worse for the person hit by the clubhead. Sometimes its just a matter of millimeters between stiches and something more serious.

I'm sure Stadler will realise that and it will stay with him for a very long time.

The main thing is the injured party is doing ok.

I think we can all learn from this as im sure we've all lost it to some degree on the course.

[Valleygolfer]

On 8/18/2018 at 10:12 PM, DeadMan said:

I'm guessing there's a liability release associated with every ticket.

Reckless and irresponsible behavior outside parameters of normal play, plus video evidence would make for a case. Signing a waiver might cover an errant golf ball but a club in a fit of rage, maybe not. It may not have been intentional but easily avoidable. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Valleygolfer

[DeadMan]

4 hours ago, Valleygolfer said:

Reckless and irresponsible behavior outside parameters of normal play, plus video evidence would make for a case. Signing a waiver might cover an errant golf ball but a club in a fit of rage, maybe not. It may not have been intentional but easily avoidable. 

Unless you can show that Stadler intended have a piece of his club hit a spectator, the waiver will cover it. This would be a negligence case without that intent, and that's what waivers are designed to cover.

15 hours ago, 308 Ragin Cajun said:

The tour sponsors and the PGA Tour are held harmless, but I don't know if it covers the player. Most cases of spectators injured .watching sporting events fall under the " Assumption of Risk Doctrine" where the spectator should know that if he enters an event where there are flying balls or other dangerous exposures, he is said to have "assumed the risk" just by purchasing a ticket and entering the premises. This probably varies depending upon the jurisdiction.

The waiver definitely covers the players, too. What you're thinking about is implied assumption of the risk, which would only matter if the waiver didn't apply here.

[Valleygolfer]

18 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Unless you can show that Stadler intended have a piece of his club hit a spectator, the waiver will cover it. This would be a negligence case without that intent, and that's what waivers are designed to cover.

That may be correct but might be looked at as reckless behavior in a court setting. Getting hit with a errant golf ball or club that slips out of a pro's hands the waiver would cover the situation but out of control behavior, the spectator might have a case. I don't know the laws, maybe you do but courts sometimes make decision that go against these protective measures.

[DeadMan]

9 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

That may be correct but might be looked at as reckless behavior in a court setting. Getting hit with a errant golf ball or club that slips out of a pro's hands the waiver would cover the situation but out of control behavior, the spectator might have a case. I don't know the laws, maybe you do but courts sometimes make decision that go against these protective measures. 

I am a lawyer, and I'm telling you this is how these types of injuries are treated by the law.

[ScouseJohnny]

18 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I am a lawyer, and I'm telling you this is how these types of injuries are treated by the law.

Is there any distinction, in terms of assumption of risk, between what might be termed reasonable, anticipated events for attending a sporting venue, and ones that are not foreseeable?

In other words, being hit by a stray golf ball seems to be an entirely reasonable accident when choosing to attend a golf tournament. A player smashing his club in rage, injuring a spectator in the process, is a little different.

[DeadMan]

2 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Is there any distinction, in terms of assumption of risk, between what might be termed reasonable, anticipated events for attending a sporting venue, and ones that are not foreseeable?

In other words, being hit by a stray golf ball seems to be an entirely reasonable accident when choosing to attend a golf tournament. A player smashing his club in rage, injuring a spectator in the process, is a little different.

The answer to your question is yes. But it also might not matter here. Generally, to assume the risk of something, you have to be aware of and understand the risk. If the risk is not foreseeable, then yeah, you can't really be aware of and understand the risk. I'm not sure that would be the case here - it's not unusual for players to break clubs. It's also not unusual for people to get hurt by flying objects at a golf tournament (granted, it's normally a golf ball and not piece of a golf club, but it's still a risk at a golf tournament to get hit by something).

Why it might not matter is because that only applies if the waiver doesn't cover this situation. That depends on the exact wording of the waiver, but I'm guessing the waiver is worded pretty broadly and will apply to this injury. Then the analysis is whether the waiver itself is valid, and it likely would be.

[Foot Wedge]

6 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

That depends on the exact wording of the waiver, but I'm guessing the waiver is worded pretty broadly and will apply to this injury. Then the analysis is whether the waiver itself is valid, and it likely would be.

Exactly what I was thinking.  I am not a lawyer, but verbiage along the lines of "injury due to projectile, or any items conveying to the venue" or something even more broad might basically treat the course, and anything on it including the equipment as some kind of hazard that spectators assume the risk of being around.  Just spitballing.