Spectator loses eyesight at Ryder Cup

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

Regardless of what the PGAs legal obligations are, there is a huge difference in what one must do, legally, and what one should do.

I have no doubt they'll do the right thing.

It's not about "doing the right thing" because in "doing the right thing" you can create a precedent and invite further trouble.

[wannabe]

Insurance will cover costs.

Tours have no additional liability.

Brooks could slide her a sizable fist key, with a gag order.

Do not change anything about the events.  Spectators can bring their own hardhats & safety glasses as they wish.

If it were me, I'd forever be known as the golf pirate.

[Carl3]

6 hours ago, CaseyD said:

You will see areas with signs

Don't think so

[Kropotkin]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

It's not about "doing the right thing" because in "doing the right thing" you can create a precedent and invite further trouble.

Slippery slope fallacy.

If you personally lost an eye, and as a result, couldn't break 100 on the course anymore, you wouldnt be so quick to lick those corporate boots. (Yes that's a weak appeal to empathy/emotion fallacy)

The money is there. They can take care of this responsibily without the strawman, "then what if someone breaks An ankle" or "oh gee what's next nets!!!" Comments. Grow up guys.

A neighbor of mine just sold his house to pay for medical bills from a accident that wasn't his fault. Hopefully the woman is from a more civilized country. Insurance doesn't magically take care of all the costs of a serious injury  in this country. But hopefully I am wrong in that regard.

[iacas]

50 minutes ago, Kropotkin said:

Slippery slope fallacy.

No, it's not. The slippery slope fallacy is when a minor action is going to lead to bigger actions. Like… "If we allow the children to choose the movie this time, they are going to expect to be able to choose the school they go to or the doctors they visit."

This is about setting a precedent. This is already a big thing. It's not a small thing that I'm suggesting could lead to bigger things. It's almost the opposite.

53 minutes ago, Kropotkin said:

If you personally lost an eye, and as a result, couldn't break 100 on the course anymore, you wouldnt be so quick to lick those corporate boots.

You can't say that at all, and you don't know that at all.

53 minutes ago, Kropotkin said:

The money is there. They can take care of this responsibily without the strawman, "then what if someone breaks An ankle" or "oh gee what's next nets!!!" Comments. Grow up guys.

It's not about growing up. It's about the law, and about how paying the woman a few million bucks setting a precedent.

[nevets88]

 

[iacas]

Good for him.

Justin Thomas hit a guy at… the PGA Championship, maybe, and was broken up about it or something.

Hitting people affects these guys.

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, Kropotkin said:

If you personally lost an eye, and as a result, couldn't break 100 on the course anymore, you wouldnt be so quick to lick those corporate boots.

Not breaking 100 would be the least of our worries if we lost an eye. But it still wouldn't come down to anyone being at fault.

You slice a drive at your home course resulting in a serious injury to another golfer. What would you do for them? Let's say you're the owner of a golf course where this occurs. What would you do?

Maybe you're a good person and would give them half, or a third, or a even quarter of what you own even though you weren't required to by law.

[CaseyD]

Slippery slope paying a lady who lost her freakin eye. Kinda a cliff wouldn’t you think?  She didn’t get hit in the back and now wants to sue, she lost her eye.  We can all say this when it’s not effecting our lives. Again I do feel that people need to be responsible for themselves but this is pretty extreme and most extreme cases end in some financial payout. 

[MacDutch]

Most Americans make this a sue/not sue thing. Yes she might not win a a sue, yes she was on the golfcourse and things like this can happen. But she lost her eye and thats a horrible thing that changes your life for good. Sure there are ways to help her without setting a legal precedent. Sure they will find a way to help her.

[JonMA1]

2 hours ago, MacDutch said:

Most Americans make this a sue/not sue thing.

Oh, the irony.

[3jacker]

18 hours ago, iacas said:

It's not about "doing the right thing" because in "doing the right thing" you can create a precedent and invite further trouble.

That's very true, but that is what confidential settlements are for.

[rehmwa]

8 hours ago, MacDutch said:

Most Americans

No such thing - 300M+ individuals, multiple and extremely diverse sub cultures over a huge geography.  these simplifications are beneath "most" people.  I wouldn't lump in all Spaniards with the entirety of Europeans.  Heck I wouldn't lump a single spanish friend with "all Spaniards.  Frankly, that's a gross laziness to treat people that way and it almost always indicates a negative when people do it.

It's interesting that we are willing to credit positive attributes to individuals, but readily attribute negatives to large groups.  I think it's because it eliminates accountability for those choices....

People exist one at a time.

Anyway - in this case, was it an Egyptian woman, hurt on French soil, hit by an American golfer, under an international organization operated on a French business.....?

Edited October 3, 2018 by rehmwa

[3jacker]

We do have that reputation.  It's a common theme even amongst us how litigious our society is. 

It has the stereotype because it's true.  So, change "most" to "many" and I think his statement is fair.

[MacDutch]

13 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

We do have that reputation.  It's a common theme even amongst us how litigious our society is. 

It has the stereotype because it's true.  So, change "most" to "many" and I think his statement is fair.

I stand corrected. Can’t change the text anymore.

[3jacker]

That can be infuriating. You should sue.😁

[JonMA1]

5 minutes ago, 3jacker said:

We do have that reputation.  It's a common theme even amongst us how litigious our society is. 

It has the stereotype because it's true.  So, change "most" to "many" and I think his statement is fair.

I agree that’s the perception and can accept it’s probably true.

Yet, the article describes a European spectator sueing event organizers who may also be European. This thread was started by a European member of the site who brought up the possibility of a lawsuit in the op. It was further discussed here by many of the site’s European and American members.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with any of that, I think it makes a post about Americans (specifically) wanting to make this a sue/not sue discussion a bit off-topic.

To @MacDutch‘s point, I have no problem with organizers reaching a settlement or doing something nice for this unfortunate woman - if it’s something they wish to pursue.

I also don’t have a problem with this accident prompting reasonable steps to reduce the chance of injuries.

But at some point we have to understand there are risks in life and they are not always preventable nor are they always someone else’s fault.

With all that said, I likely wouldn’t be very objective if I’d lost an eye.

[3jacker]

I agree with all that.

It really is tragic.  I hate to see someone going to what's supposed to be a really good time and have something like this happen. Especially when they didn't do anything at all contributory.  But on the other side, as well, there was no negligence. 

I comes down to the parties working it out amongst themselves, privately.  Or not.  

At the end of the day everyone will be just fine except for that woman.  Regardless of what else transpires.