When fifty two years of membership doesn’t stop veteran golfer from suing his club
What happened?
A golfer, aged sixty nine was playing a round at his local club where he had been a member since the age of seventeen.
The golfer was playing the 2nd hole when another golfer struck his ball on the 1st tee, but hooked it – veering way off to the left and straight towards him. The ball travelled 220 yards over a copse of six-metre high trees, before hitting the golfer on the head.
He suffered a punctured skull, bruising and a bleed to his brain. In a statement, he said he feared he had been millimetres away from possible death. He had a continuing increased risk of epilepsy as a result of the focal injury to his brain, but he has since returned to playing on the course.
The golfer made a claim against his club.
Legal Outcome
The court was told the club had not taken steps to reduce or highlight the risk of balls being hit across the copse of trees, but an expert witness for the golf club, said a response to risk assessments must be proportionate to the risk identified.
He estimated that about 20,000 games were played each year and this was the only accident of its kind.
The judge dismissed the golfer’s claim, stating that the club could not have been expected to foresee or prevent the incident, saying ‘He was extremely unfortunate to have been hit by an errant ball, the trajectory of which would not reasonably have been foreseen and whose consequences could not reasonably have been prevented.’
What can we learn from what happened?
In a statement, the club said that ‘golf is not without its risks, known to all players of all abilities on any course.’
They are, of course, right, but that does not mean that controls or protection should not be in place if needed and justified.
The risk of being hit is foreseeable when someone is positioned no further than the furthest distance a golfer can hit the ball (in this case it was about 220 yards, so well within what can be achieved). The issue is about reasonable foreseeability combined with the acceptance of risk, and also the probability of being hit – a person, and specifically a person’s head is a pretty small target when you are strolling around the wide expanses of a gold course.
There have been other similar cases, at least one of which resulted in a successful claim and will be covered in the library, but this should not set any kind of precedent as the circumstances will be different every time.
The judge in this case felt that the claim did not meet the reasonably foreseeable test, the accident could not have been reasonably prevented, so no compensation was awarded.
Source of Information
Times and Star Newspaper Online
Mail Online
The Golf Business