Fan Hit by Koepka's Drive - **MERGED TOPICS**

[cgbm]

Oridinarily I would agree they should be yelling FORE - and they should. But she was standing about 300+ yards downrange with the wind blowing. The 7th tee was right nearby and that spot was right off another tee box, I think the 12th hole. *Massive* crowds. Would she have even been able to hear someone yelling fore from the 6th tee box? And if she did, would you know quickly enough where it was coming from?

 

IMO this is just one of those things that can happen at a golf tournament.

 

I think your point is a good one, and I don't disagree with it. What someone is going to say about risk mitigation is that a seatbelt might not save your life in a 100mph car crash but you put it on anyway. Could it be seen as negligent if a ball was knowingly hit towards a crowd of people and there was nothing done (even in vain) to alert them? If you hit it towards a crowd and just pick up your tee peg because it's far away or noisy that might not be good enough in a French court.

 

Right, so now we're basically saying "He should have yelled even if it made no difference because legally at least it will look like he bothered to care"

 

Yelling fore from 320 out makes zero. Zero. Read it. Zero difference. You cannot hear it at that distance without a favorable wind or canyon echo to carry the sound. Easily proven in a controlled test. Remember All hat crowd noise. I doubt you could hear the person beside you unless they were talking very loudly.

 

Should you shout it ? Sure. As habit. Yes. But it makes no difference in making Driver shot. Par 3. Yes. That matters. You can see the person on the tee. Not from 320 out.

 

That being said I feel terrible for the lady. But it is akin to standing in the street . Id never stand 300 out at a tour event. Tee box or greenside only for me.

 

As I posted up the thread, perhaps the answer is some kind of air horn that's obviously a warning note.

 

How would that air horn affect other players shots?

 

Not realistic.

[farmer]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

[vaca22]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury.

 

It is an extremely unfortunate situation.

[Dr. Block]

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

[ebrasmus21]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

[jdl]

But legally someone cannot waive their right to an outcome like being hit hard enough to cause blindness. I don't think so in France anyway. Here we have laws like that

 

You're not waiving your "right to an outcome", you're actively assuming the risk of entering the premises. People hit golf balls 100 yards off line all the time, where do you want spectators to be?

 

This is a pure junk lawsuit.

 

As I posted previously, not sure I agree in this particular instance. They set up this hole as a driveable par 4 and those crowds were surrounding the green like it was a 150 yard par 3. Seems like there's a case to be made that this greatly increased the odds that someone would be hit.

[Golfer4Life]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

 

Well, so how does it work?

[ebrasmus21]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

 

Well, so how does it work?

 

As I mentioned a couple pages ago -- event organizers can put whatever words they want on a ticket. Those words don't absolve them of liability when a lawsuit is filed. The organizers will still have to defend themselves in court (if it goes to court) and the defense of "well, but wait, Judge, what about the fine print on the ticket. Look, see!" will not be an effective defense. The organizers still have a duty to keep people safe.

[smeech8000]

The plaintiff is suing the tournament organizer, on the basis that they (i.e. the marshals) did not meet their duty to adequately warn her about the incoming shot. It has been confirmed that numerous members of the group shouted fore, however I think the key issue in this case will be whether the organizer and its employees do indeed have a duty to warn spectators of incoming errant shots.

 

 

They set up this hole as a driveable par 4 and those crowds were surrounding the green like it was a 150 yard par 3. Seems like there's a case to be made that this greatly increased the odds that someone would be hit.

 

I, personally, do not feel that a marshal failing to warn spectators constitutes negligence in and of itself, however this certainly seems to have merit.

 

 

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

No way in hell Koepka or any other professional would set that precedent. While your ethics may deem it the "right" thing to do, please be careful of how you spend other people's money...

[cvhookem63]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

 

That is how it works on the PGA Tour. https://www.pgatour....icketterms.html

 

I would assume the European Tour uses similar language on their ticketing. Just like if you attend a baseball game you are agreeing to waive liability of the club if a foul ball hits you in the head.

 

I am not saying a law suit could not be successful, but there is language in place that would make that lawsuit more difficult to win.

 

edit: just saw your response to Golfer4Life. I agree.

[Dr. Block]

The plaintiff is suing the tournament organizer, on the basis that they (i.e. the marshals) did not meet their duty to adequately warn her about the incoming shot. It has been confirmed that numerous members of the group shouted fore, however I think the key issue in this case will be whether the organizer and its employees do indeed have a duty to warn spectators of incoming errant shots.

 

 

They set up this hole as a driveable par 4 and those crowds were surrounding the green like it was a 150 yard par 3. Seems like there's a case to be made that this greatly increased the odds that someone would be hit.

 

I, personally, do not feel that a marshal failing to warn spectators constitutes negligence in and of itself, however this certainly seems to have merit.

 

 

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

No way in hell Koepka or any other professional would set that precedent. While your ethics may deem it the "right" thing to do, please be careful of how you spend other people's money...

 

How about I say whatever I wan't. I'm not the keeper of his estate and I'm not "spending" anything. This scenario is not precedent setting. We're not talking about a bump on the head, she lost her eyeball. It would go a long way in giving him some piece of mind.

[Swisstrader98]

There have been a few comments regarding a warning or a hold-harmless agreement on a ticket stub.... those disclaimers are certainly not hold-harmless agreements and are not an effective legal defense. Organizers can put whatever words they want on a ticket stub - they will still have to defend themselves if s*** hits the fan.

 

Correct. Same for being in a restaurant and sign says not responsible for items left in coatcheck. They can say it, but meaningless in a court of law.

[ebrasmus21]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

 

That is how it works on the PGA Tour. https://www.pgatour....icketterms.html

 

I would assume the European Tour uses similar language on their ticketing. Just like if you attend a baseball game you are agreeing to waive liability of the club if a foul ball hits you in the head.

 

I am not saying a law suit could not be successful, but there is language in place that would make that lawsuit more difficult to win.

 

I understand that the wording is placed on the tickets. A number of posters seem to think that the wording on the tickets 100% absolves the organizers of any liability whatsoever. IF that were the case organizers would win every single lawsuit filed against them - but they don't.

 

The organizers use that wording to try and help their case - nothing more.

[cvhookem63]

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

No way in hell Koepka or any other professional would set that precedent. While your ethics may deem it the "right" thing to do, please be careful of how you spend other people's money...

 

I think that precedent has already been set dating all the way back to the 70s. in 1971, Lu Liang-huan hit a fan in the head and then treated the fan and her husband to an all-expenses paid trip to Taiwan. A few years ago, Rory hit a fan in the head (split the head open). He put them up in a hotel and then paid for their dinner. Then there was Sergio knocking the woman's diamond out of her wedding ring. When they couldn't find it, he told her he was going to replace the diamond for her. They ended up finding it later in the round, but I believe he would have held up his end of the bargain. This would hardly be the first time that a fan was given some kind of benefit or payment from a player after being affected by a wayward shot.

[cgbm]

The plaintiff is suing the tournament organizer, on the basis that they (i.e. the marshals) did not meet their duty to adequately warn her about the incoming shot. It has been confirmed that numerous members of the group shouted fore, however I think the key issue in this case will be whether the organizer and its employees do indeed have a duty to warn spectators of incoming errant shots.

 

 

They set up this hole as a driveable par 4 and those crowds were surrounding the green like it was a 150 yard par 3. Seems like there's a case to be made that this greatly increased the odds that someone would be hit.

 

I, personally, do not feel that a marshal failing to warn spectators constitutes negligence in and of itself, however this certainly seems to have merit.

 

 

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

No way in hell Koepka or any other professional would set that precedent. While your ethics may deem it the "right" thing to do, please be careful of how you spend other people's money...

 

How about I say whatever I wan't. I'm not the keeper of his estate and I'm not "spending" anything. This scenario is not precedent setting. We're not talking about a bump on the head, she lost her eyeball. It would go a long way in giving him some piece of mind.

 

So its the location and severity of the injury that constitutes him giving her money?

 

How much exactly should he give her?

 

What would be adequate to give HIM piece of mind?

 

Because when i feel bad for something i generally give someone a bunch of my money and feel way better.

[lopey986]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

 

That is how it works on the PGA Tour. https://www.pgatour....icketterms.html

 

I would assume the European Tour uses similar language on their ticketing. Just like if you attend a baseball game you are agreeing to waive liability of the club if a foul ball hits you in the head.

 

I am not saying a law suit could not be successful, but there is language in place that would make that lawsuit more difficult to win.

 

I understand that the wording is placed on the tickets. A number of posters seem to think that the wording on the tickets 100% absolves the organizers of any liability whatsoever. IF that were the case organizers would win every single lawsuit filed against them - but they don't.

 

The organizers use that wording to try and help their case - nothing more.

 

It generally absolves them of liability from injuries that happen due to something that regularly happens at a sporting event. Get hit by a foul ball, golf ball, broken bat, LeBron James flying over the seats...they are pretty well covered because it is something to be expected and you should be prepared.

 

It doesn't absolve them if it's something like netting fails, something structural fails (think a grandstand collapsing or bricks falling from wrigley field).

 

I don't particularly think the woman has a very strong case but she may end up getting a settlement just to avoid any type of lawsuit going to trial.

[Naptime]

I read she was suing the event organizers. I suspect EU law is different from US law, and am not sure whether this sort of thing is subject to French national versus EU law.

[RobS14526]

There has to be a General Liability policy with a substantial umbrella. I assume it would be purchased by the organizers but I guess it could be held by the club. I don’t think it’s a whole lot different than a spectator getting run don by a runaway golf cart or something similar. Or maybe a better analogy would be somebody wandering onto a construction site and getting hurt. There could be all kinds of warnings but there will end up being a settlement of some sort.

 

I hope she makes as full of a recovery as possible.

[A.G. Pennypacker]

The plaintiff is suing the tournament organizer, on the basis that they (i.e. the marshals) did not meet their duty to adequately warn her about the incoming shot. It has been confirmed that numerous members of the group shouted fore, however I think the key issue in this case will be whether the organizer and its employees do indeed have a duty to warn spectators of incoming errant shots.

 

 

They set up this hole as a driveable par 4 and those crowds were surrounding the green like it was a 150 yard par 3. Seems like there's a case to be made that this greatly increased the odds that someone would be hit.

 

I, personally, do not feel that a marshal failing to warn spectators constitutes negligence in and of itself, however this certainly seems to have merit.

 

 

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

No way in hell Koepka or any other professional would set that precedent. While your ethics may deem it the "right" thing to do, please be careful of how you spend other people's money...

 

How about I say whatever I wan't. I'm not the keeper of his estate and I'm not "spending" anything. This scenario is not precedent setting. We're not talking about a bump on the head, she lost her eyeball. It would go a long way in giving him some piece of mind.

 

This is comical, to say the least.

 

Tell us more about someone else's piece of mind. How about mine? Tell me a little bit about what I'd do if I beaned someone off the tee, and how bad I'd feel (or not) about it! I'm interested to know.

[QEight]

I would have thought the organizer would have an insurance for this type of accidents and not rely on "small print".

[QEight]

How would that air horn affect other players shots?

 

Not realistic.

 

Ah the problem with other players. What?

[Golfer4Life]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

 

Well, so how does it work?

 

As I mentioned a couple pages ago -- event organizers can put whatever words they want on a ticket. Those words don't absolve them of liability when a lawsuit is filed. The organizers will still have to defend themselves in court (if it goes to court) and the defense of "well, but wait, Judge, what about the fine print on the ticket. Look, see!" will not be an effective defense. The organizers still have a duty to keep people safe.

 

Thanks for that. Well, I guess the only thing left to say is for the organizers to hope the judge is a golfer, lol....

[Dr. Block]

The plaintiff is suing the tournament organizer, on the basis that they (i.e. the marshals) did not meet their duty to adequately warn her about the incoming shot. It has been confirmed that numerous members of the group shouted fore, however I think the key issue in this case will be whether the organizer and its employees do indeed have a duty to warn spectators of incoming errant shots.

 

 

They set up this hole as a driveable par 4 and those crowds were surrounding the green like it was a 150 yard par 3. Seems like there's a case to be made that this greatly increased the odds that someone would be hit.

 

I, personally, do not feel that a marshal failing to warn spectators constitutes negligence in and of itself, however this certainly seems to have merit.

 

 

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

No way in hell Koepka or any other professional would set that precedent. While your ethics may deem it the "right" thing to do, please be careful of how you spend other people's money...

 

How about I say whatever I wan't. I'm not the keeper of his estate and I'm not "spending" anything. This scenario is not precedent setting. We're not talking about a bump on the head, she lost her eyeball. It would go a long way in giving him some piece of mind.

 

This is comical, to say the least.

 

Tell us more about someone else's piece of mind. How about mine? Tell me a little bit about what I'd do if I beaned someone off the tee, and how bad I'd feel (or not) about it! I'm interested to know.

 

my guess would be you wouldn't care at all.

[cgbm]

How would that air horn affect other players shots?

 

Not realistic.

 

Ah the problem with other players. What?

 

Sounding an air horn for errant shots.

 

Probably would also sound during another players swing.

 

How would airhorns affect play as a whole?

 

It isnt a good solution.

 

[Dr. Block]

The plaintiff is suing the tournament organizer, on the basis that they (i.e. the marshals) did not meet their duty to adequately warn her about the incoming shot. It has been confirmed that numerous members of the group shouted fore, however I think the key issue in this case will be whether the organizer and its employees do indeed have a duty to warn spectators of incoming errant shots.

 

 

They set up this hole as a driveable par 4 and those crowds were surrounding the green like it was a 150 yard par 3. Seems like there's a case to be made that this greatly increased the odds that someone would be hit.

 

I, personally, do not feel that a marshal failing to warn spectators constitutes negligence in and of itself, however this certainly seems to have merit.

 

 

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

No way in hell Koepka or any other professional would set that precedent. While your ethics may deem it the "right" thing to do, please be careful of how you spend other people's money...

 

How about I say whatever I wan't. I'm not the keeper of his estate and I'm not "spending" anything. This scenario is not precedent setting. We're not talking about a bump on the head, she lost her eyeball. It would go a long way in giving him some piece of mind.

 

So its the location and severity of the injury that constitutes him giving her money?

 

How much exactly should he give her?

 

What would be adequate to give HIM piece of mind?

 

Because when i feel bad for something i generally give someone a bunch of my money and feel way better.

 

I've been following golf pretty closely for the past 25 years, I've never heard of anyone losing one of their eyes before. So yes, this seems to be a uniquely severe injury. I would give at least enough to cover all of her medical expenses.

[Potatohead]

This is France, how many medical bills can she have? I'm not sure if France is like here in Canada but the only bills you would have for something like this are optional, like a hospital room to yourself rather than shared with one other person.

 

This is really a crappy incident, I'm sure the event organizer(s) have insurance, the lady will get some money, and life will move on. I do agree with some people that this was bound to happen, the way people line up around shots is crazy. I recall one shot at East Lake last week in the final round Rory was trying to hook a wedge around a tree and was literally hitting the ball over about 100 people 50 yards in front of him.

 

Way back in 1997 I attended the Canadian Skins Game in Whistler. Greg Norman hit a guy in the head off the tee and I distinctly remember him telling his caddy (I believe Tony Navarro) asking him to be sure to get the guys name and address. I'm sure he sent him a whole wack of stuff.

[Event^Horizon]

I wonder who she will sue? The event organizers? The club for not having enough shelter? Who would be deemed to be negligent? She will sue someone, and that entity may choose to settle rather than go through the aggravation of a court hearing, or they may fight it out to prevent a precedent being set.

 

Somewhere, on the back of that ticket, likely in small print, will be a disclaimer that spectators assume the risk of being injured and that the event organizers, sponsors, etc, are protected from liability over the injury

 

That is 100% NOT how it works.

 

Well, so how does it work?

 

As I mentioned a couple pages ago -- event organizers can put whatever words they want on a ticket. Those words don't absolve them of liability when a lawsuit is filed. The organizers will still have to defend themselves in court (if it goes to court) and the defense of "well, but wait, Judge, what about the fine print on the ticket. Look, see!" will not be an effective defense. The organizers still have a duty to keep people safe.

 

If you go to a golf tournament there is a chance you will get hit by a golf ball. It may be a small chance, but it's there nonetheless. The best way for organizers to keep people safe is not to allow them on the golf course. Whether it's printed on the ticket or not, there is some assumption of risk attached. If there is a law suit, I hope the judge throws it out.

[QEight]

How would that air horn affect other players shots?

 

Not realistic.

 

Ah the problem with other players. What?

 

Sounding an air horn for errant shots.

 

Probably would also sound during another players swing.

 

How would airhorns affect play as a whole?

 

It isnt a good solution.

 

I am not saying it is the best solution, but to neglect it by saying it affects someones backswing is absurd.

[bladehunter]

If I were in Koepka's shoes I would be sending this woman a check with a healthy amount of zero's in it. He can afford it and it's the right thing to do.

 

I agree on principle. But. It would take a smart attorney to figure out how to do it without him admitting liability. I suppose some type of release could be drawn up. I’m no lawyer. But I’ve hired enough good ones to know that in today’s times you cannot just offer help . The question arrives “why”? Are you helping. Do you feel responsible ? If you do then you are responsible. Still sounds ok. But. The rub is a court of law and jury will award her 10x the medical bills for this if there is any liability.

[QEight]

If you go to a golf tournament there is a chance you will get hit by a golf ball. It may be a small chance, but it's there nonetheless. The best way for organizers to keep people safe is not to allow them on the golf course. Whether it's printed on the ticket or not, there is some assumption of risk attached. If there is a law suit, I hope the judge throws it out.

 

There is a chance, but think for it a minute. You take your kid to a golf tournament and he dies because of an errant golf ball or loses sight and can not work in a profession he practiced/studied for 4 years with college bills. "I hope the judge throws it out".