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

[doublehans]

I hate situations like this. I have a strong opinion on it and yet if I express it people will say " there you go blaming the victim. "

 

Local story. Local teacher is killed at 5 am on his bicycle . He was riding on a nearly deserted rural road with speed limit of 45 near my house. It was still very dark at 5 am. Young lady going to work hit him. She says she never saw him. No skid marks etc. they charge her and convict of of vehicular manslaughter. And sentence her to 5 years in jail.

 

2 issues with that.

 

1. I don't think bicycles should be on a rural road anyway. No bike lanes. No taxes paid. No way. City limits with bike lanes. Sure.

 

2. Absolutely zero witnesses and no skid marks. No proof of anything except a grown man playing in the street in the dark.

 

It's a very regrettable and terrible accident. But who's at fault. The young lady who didn't set out to kill anyone that morning ? Or the man who did set out to put himself in harms way that morning ? And no don't tell me riding a bicycle is same as gettin in the car and entering the highway. It's not.

 

This lady may have been ignorant of her danger. But I've been told in open court by a judge that " ignorance is no excuse and will not be considered in my decision ". At some point people have to understand and take responsibility for their own safety. If she had an expectation of safety 300 out at a pro tournament she was sadly mistaken. A mistake of her own doing. Anyone who knows anything wouldn't stand there . Same as folks with sense don't play in the road in the dark .

 

So to my previous post, are you saying that you think the organizers bear no responsibility even if a fore warning wasn't given?

 

Personally. No. Not legally. Morally sure. Pay her expenses plus a nest egg . It would be the right thing and they've offered to take care of her.

 

Especially if the ticket has a disclaimer like the pga tour ticket. People should not be able to sue at will. Or if they do and lose should have to pay damages themselves.

 

Example. You go to a lion exhibit. Pay to take pics with the lion. Sign a release or buy a ticket with a disclaimer . Lion eats you. In my book you were eaten because you played with a dangerous animal. That isn't the fault of the folks selling lion experiences. Any reasonable person knows this isn't a safe endeavor. Much like skydiving or bungee jumping. Only suits I agree with there is proven negligence like using known malfunctioning equipment etc.

 

Standing beside a fairway at a pga tour event is just as dangerous as standing trackside at a Nhra drag race. I've been to many races. I've never stood by the rail. Or sat on the top end stands. 300 mph plus isn't easy to catch bare handed. But idiots do it.

 

lol, pay to take pictures with a lion? You are really out there on that one.

 

If I go to a nascar race, sit next to the track and the fence breaks due to a faulty installation, do you think there is any liability on the organizer's part? If not, then I guess we will just agree to disagree.

 

Again, IF no fore was yelled, this is the same situation. You went to an event and it is reasonable to expect that standard safety measures are being adhered to like a fore warning given, just like you expect the fence to not fail.

 

LOl...Ok scuba dive and you drown, snorkling and a shark eats you...whatever you prefer .. They are less than safe activities where accidents happen .

 

I gave an example of using out of date or known malfunctioning equipment as reasons for liability... Same for a fence that isnt properly installed... lets say that same race an axle breaks and hits just right and flies the 30-40 foot fence they have surrounding the track.. a one in a billion chance... kills a couple.. do i think the track or organization is responsible? No i really dont.. now i do know they have insurance to cover it . BUT thats part of what drives up prices for all of us . Id just like to see people take some responsibility for their own choice to do a less than safe activity . Thats all. Some activities i do not believe theres a realistic expectation of safety , ever.... Baseball game in the kill zone and golf tournament 280-330 out beside a fairway is same same ....

 

The increased costs would actually be a significant factor here if it meant a strong run up in ticket prices and related decline in attendance. but serious injuries at tour events are pretty rare, so paying out or buying insurance would be unlikely to tip that scale.

[deadsolid...shank]

Is anyone in here saying they shouldn’t help her out on some way becasue it’s the “right” thing to do? I really don’t think so.

 

Most are saying they should not (and are not) legally obligated to do soemthing. They can do a good faith gesture (however much that may be),but ultimately, the responsibility should still fall on her.

 

You really can’t protect everyone from everything.

[Always_rough]

A lot of arm chair lawyer's in this thread throwing out insane hypothetical situations. I don't know French law, so I've refrained from commenting. However, if this case were in the states, it would be quite difficult for her to recover any damages.

 

If anyone is curious as how the law works in the states, I would be more than happy to explain it to you at $200 an hour. Jk, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to explain.

[nsxguy]

A lot of arm chair lawyer's in this thread throwing out insane hypothetical situations. I don't know French law, so I've refrained from commenting. However, if this case were in the states, it would be quite difficult for her to recover any damages.

 

If anyone is curious as how the law works in the states, I would be more than happy to explain it to you at $200 an hour. Jk, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to explain.

 

OK, please explain.

 

TIA

[PixlPutterman]

Sounds like we can also debate the morality of French law too lol

[Forged4ever]

A lot of arm chair lawyer's in this thread throwing out insane hypothetical situations. I don't know French law, so I've refrained from commenting. However, if this case were in the states, it would be quite difficult for her to recover any damages.

 

If anyone is curious as how the law works in the states, I would be more than happy to explain it to you at $200 an hour. Jk, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to explain.

HaHa, the one thing about this board, and that is the amazing array of talent and flexibility as if a Physician’s opinion is required, ?BOOM?, we got 18-20+ docs chirpin in.

 

A legal opinion???

 

Sheeeeaaat, we got more attorneys than Titleist does patents, lol

 

The amazing thing that took me a while to get used to was that they’re often the same guys!!!

 

Talk about intellectual muscle?!!!

 

Then ya got the guys like me who according to Madison, our tones of certainty faaaar faaaar exceed our actual knowledge in any and most areas, and you have, well, for lack of a better description, a cluster f***??

 

However you have a great idea!!

 

I should start charging for my legal, medical and any other opinions instead of givin them to these Putzes for free??

 

I loooove this place?

 

Stay well HA?

 

Cheers?

RP

[Always_rough]

A lot of arm chair lawyer's in this thread throwing out insane hypothetical situations. I don't know French law, so I've refrained from commenting. However, if this case were in the states, it would be quite difficult for her to recover any damages.

 

If anyone is curious as how the law works in the states, I would be more than happy to explain it to you at $200 an hour. Jk, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to explain.

 

OK, please explain.

 

TIA

 

You didn't specify what you wanted me to explain, but I'll start off by saying this is a extremely brief explanation of a very complicated subject, and what follows should not be taken as legal advice.

 

Golf is a sport, and because it is a sport, in order to be found negligent on the golf course, one normally has to act recklessly or intentionally during the act that caused the injury. With the exception that this standard may vary state to state, country to country.

 

So for example, lets say you're out with your buddies for a round of golf, you hit your tee shot, then it slices and hits someone walking down the adjacent fairway. Even if your ball took their eye out, as long as you weren't acting recklessly or with the intent to strike them with your ball, it would be extremely hard for them to recover any damages. Golf is a sport like any other. Sports have an inherent risk to them that other everyday normal activities do not. Once a ball is in the air, we no longer have control over what it will do, or what the natural environment will do to it.

[nsxguy]

A lot of arm chair lawyer's in this thread throwing out insane hypothetical situations. I don't know French law, so I've refrained from commenting. However, if this case were in the states, it would be quite difficult for her to recover any damages.

 

If anyone is curious as how the law works in the states, I would be more than happy to explain it to you at $200 an hour. Jk, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to explain.

 

OK, please explain.

 

TIA

 

You didn't specify what you wanted me to explain, but I'll start off by saying this is a extremely brief explanation of a very complicated subject, and what follows should not be taken as legal advice.

 

Golf is a sport, and because it is a sport, in order to be found negligent on the golf course, one normally has to act recklessly or intentionally during the act that caused the injury. With the exception that this standard may vary state to state, country to country.

 

So for example, lets say you're out with your buddies for a round of golf, you hit your tee shot, then it slices and hits someone walking down the adjacent fairway. Even if your ball took their eye out, as long as you weren't acting recklessly or with the intent to strike them with your ball, it would be extremely hard for them to recover any damages. Golf is a sport like any other. Sports have an inherent risk to them that other everyday normal activities do not. Once a ball is in the air, we no longer have control over what it will do, or what the natural environment will do to it.

 

You're the one who offered to explain. And there was only the 1 thing to explain. LOL

 

But surely you realize the issue here is of a SPECTATOR being injured, not one of the participants. Surely that makes a difference, no ?

[Ignatius Reilly]

Just to add to that thought, she was one of about 270,000 spectators at an entertainment event. One which featured 24 golfers.

 

So the laws regarding golfers hit by golfers are probably not the applicable ones.

 

Given the number of times this has happened (never before?) and the likelihood of it happening again in my lifetime.... I think the RC needs to carve a little out of its profits and take care of this woman. It would set some sort of precedent, but that would only be a problem if it turns out to be a common occurrence, or if it had happened in the uber-litigious US.

 

I have no idea how spectators go to a golf event and manage to not watch a tee ball being hit when they're in the landing zone for that hole. It's worth noting a couple of things from the BBC article linked a while back: She and her husband had travelled from Egypt to Paris to watch the RC. She's had 2 HIO's in her life (so far). So.... she's not unfamiliar with the sport.

[Always_rough]

A lot of arm chair lawyer's in this thread throwing out insane hypothetical situations. I don't know French law, so I've refrained from commenting. However, if this case were in the states, it would be quite difficult for her to recover any damages.

 

If anyone is curious as how the law works in the states, I would be more than happy to explain it to you at $200 an hour. Jk, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to explain.

 

OK, please explain.

 

TIA

 

You didn't specify what you wanted me to explain, but I'll start off by saying this is a extremely brief explanation of a very complicated subject, and what follows should not be taken as legal advice.

 

Golf is a sport, and because it is a sport, in order to be found negligent on the golf course, one normally has to act recklessly or intentionally during the act that caused the injury. With the exception that this standard may vary state to state, country to country.

 

So for example, lets say you're out with your buddies for a round of golf, you hit your tee shot, then it slices and hits someone walking down the adjacent fairway. Even if your ball took their eye out, as long as you weren't acting recklessly or with the intent to strike them with your ball, it would be extremely hard for them to recover any damages. Golf is a sport like any other. Sports have an inherent risk to them that other everyday normal activities do not. Once a ball is in the air, we no longer have control over what it will do, or what the natural environment will do to it.

 

You're the one who offered to explain. And there was only the 1 thing to explain. LOL

 

But surely you realize the issue here is of a SPECTATOR being injured, not one of the participants. Surely that makes a difference, no ?

 

Fair enough, but unfortunately since I'm unfamiliar with a few necessary facts, I can't comment on the Ryder Cup event.

 

I'd need to know what the purchase agreement for the ticket said, what the venue's duty was to the woman who was hit, and what French law says about liability.

 

For the PGA Tour, I'll quote directly from the ticket Terms & Conditions:

 

"YOU ASSUME ALL RISK AND DANGER ARISING OUT OF YOUR ATTENDANCE INCLUDING LOSS OF YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY, INJURY, OR DEATH FROM A GOLF SHOT OR BY OTHER SPECTATORS OR PLAYERS, AND YOU HEREBY RELEASE TOUR, THE HOST ORGANIZATION, THE HOST SITE, TELEVISION BROADCASTERS, SPONSORS, VENDORS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE AFFILIATES, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, AND ALL VOLUNTEERS, PARTICIPATING PLAYERS AND CADDIES, FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF SUCH LOSSES, INJURIES OR DEATH."

 

And I should add that this doesn't mean that one could never sue the PGA Tour for an injury caused while attending an event, but it makes it very difficult to do so.

[bscinstnct]

^

 

Lawyers exist

 

To tell people (and make a living from telling people) what those people said is bull$hit ; )

[mocokid]

This incident reminded me of a tactic that started long ago in the Ryder Cup based on where they place the gallery ropes and it became a strategy/tactic as when the home team had bombers though their accuracy was sometimes in question, the hosting team would have what was called "tight ropes," in which the ropes were moved closer to the fairways, allowing the gallery to walk, step and stand on the rough, tramping and matting it down, thus taking inches off of the second cut and often allowing a Player to hit from a great lie, instead of 4-6" of heavy grass.

 

Where I first saw this was against Oakmont in our Inter-Club Championship in the early 90's, a two day Ryder Cup style event. Their former HP, Lew Worsham, himself a 1947 US Open Champion and Ryder Cupper, who went 2-0 in his matches, had told them of this and when we Played at their place, it was always with tight ropes.

 

At our place, we always moved the ropes back, bringing our 4-5" second cut into Play.

 

Lew also told a story of the 1947 Ryder Cup, Played on American soil, with hogan as captain, and the "tight ropes" were implemented, which was fine with the US Players however the second part of the tactic, keeping their mouth shut instead of yelling "fore," bothered Lord Byron and he wanted no part of that, and word got back to hogan, who told him that they played as a team, win lose or draw, and it was decided that this was how they would Play. Still bothered by this unsportsmanlike tactic, Mr. Nelson went to Sam and his best tour bud, Lloyd Mangrum, telling them that he wanted no part of this "tactic," and Lloyd told him to forget it, Play his game as he had his whole life and Lloyd would talk to hogan.

 

Apparently Mr. Nelson did not appreciate just how much hogan feared Lloyd, and he was hesitant and definitely not at ease so Sam promised him that all would be fine and in fact Sam didn't think another word would be spoken about the matter from hogan. This seemed to comfort Mr. Nelson as he knew and trusted Sam more than Lloyd, who was just back from the war the season before and more or less kept to himself.

 

Long story short, they Played the tight ropes, Mr. Nelson yelled fore when necessary and ole benny boy never uttered another word about it, hahaha. I asked Sam about the story and he verified it by just saying that it was a "misunderstanding," and Lloyd "took care of it and ben understood,"

 

This part of the "tight ropes" was controversial as neither the Player nor caddie would yell "fore" and even though there would be fans or officials who would yell "fore," I was amazed at the number of fans who were focused on the Player on the tee and when he didn't yell "fore," they didn't react.

 

What this did was that it delayed or prevented the fans from dispersing from the area that the ball would land and thus act as a barrier that stopped the ball from traveling further into the rough or garbage, many times giving the guy a decent line to the green where he would have otherwise been way right or left.

 

Not only did I not adhere to this tactic, if my opponent sprayed one, I would immediately yell and point "fore left" or "right right".

 

Let me say also that neither Jay Sigel, Duke Delcher or later Nathan Smith ever used the "no call" tactic, as all three would immediately yell "fore" and point to where their Ball was headed, though a number of the Oakmont guys would use it.

 

This all started back in the early Ryder Cup days when Lew & the boys would use any and all tactics to their advantage, lol.

 

Fortunately, there was never a bad injury resulting from it.

 

Cheers

RP

 

Hey Richard, from what I've read, Byron was super straight, so it should not have mattered to him, though I understand the gentleman part of it, and Byron was that.

[Swisstrader98]

In cases like this they almost NEVER ago to trial...they simply get settled. Further, I would just guess that it’s not Koepka that will need to reach into his wallet but rather a settlement with the tournament organizers, aka deep(er) pockets.

[MattyO1984]

Lots of lawyers on here.

 

I am one and whilst in my practice I have no focus at all on personal injury and I have no knoweledge of French law, there have been some interesting cases in Scotland, one Phee vs Gordon and others is very similar to what has happened here. For those of you, that way inclined the full judgment is available here - https://www.scotcour...00-ff0000d74aa7

 

I remember when this case was going through the Courts, I was still at Uni and my thought was that there was no way that the Court would find in favour of the pursuer. I was wrong. If Scottish law which has no such thing as punitive damages is going this way, I can see why the lady in question here is going to get a sizeable payout of some kind.

 

An interesting excerpt from the judgment is this -

 

When Mr Gordon arrived at the 18^th tee on the day in question he made the error of overestimating the likelihood of his tee shot following its desired or intended path to its intended target and, simultaneously, underestimating the degree of risk to which his shot would place the pursuer and his three companions then proceeding on the path between the 6^th green and the 7^th tee. On the basis of his own evidence these errors were caused by an inflated degree of confidence.

As a result of this overconfidence Mr Gordon made his tee shot at a time when the exercise of reasonable care should have informed him that there was a foreseeable risk that his shot might be bad and might encroach on the area being crossed by the pursuer.

The court considers that these risks should have been within the contemplation of Mr Gordon because he should have appreciated that every golfer, no matter his or her degree of competence, will make bad shots. Further he should have appreciated, as a matter of commonsense if nothing else, that the lower the degree of skill of a golfer the more likely there is to be a bad shot. He should have appreciated that, at the material time, he was a golfer of, at best, moderate skill and therefore he was more likely than a more skilled golfer to make a bad shot.

[stevo33]

Kuchar just offended on 14 at the Masters. Hit long/ left with 2nd shot. No shout of Fore. Likely hoping for a bounce off the gallery (patrons!). US commentators don't pick up on it at all. Sky commentators make an issue of it.

He's not as nice as you think, Our Matt!