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

[Hawkeye77]

Mark Roe's view. https://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12061/11387062/not-shouting-fore-after-a-wayward-shot-is-unacceptable-says-mark-roe

[lowheel]

Tough break and always scary to see. Somehow I feel Peter Aliss would get fired for unloading on this lady post incident. Don’t mean to poke fun ata obviously bad situation but I can just picture it...

[MarkFromTheUK]

The only solution is to issue all golf spectators with hard hats and safety goggles upon entry from now on.

[PixlPutterman]

I can see the reason we live in such a lawsuit happy society these days.

 

If you cant differentiate between thinking it would be a great gesture for the Ryder Cup to take care of her, and them being LEGALLY compelled to do so, that is where we will part ways on this.

 

Not everything has to be someones fault to the tune of millions of dollars

[chigolfer1]

Mark Roe's view. https://www.skysport...e-says-mark-roe

 

Misleading. This isn't his view on the incident. This is a very prescient article on how pros are not yelling fore when they need to be written before the incident.

[Jacked_Loft]

Due to the severity of her injury I'm sure she will get a voluntary compensation from the organizing party, but we will never hear about how much she gets.

 

In live golf events, it just doesn't make good business sense to expose your audience to danger (even if you warn them in advance) and then not offer financial support when something does go terribly wrong.

 

In baseball or hockey they have put protective fences and barriers up because of how often someone could/would get hit, but in golf as it still is a relatively small number of people getting beaned. It may sound callous but the number of handicaping injuries caused by golfball impacts is way lower than that from hockey pucks or foul balls.

 

Mandatory medical insurance in France will cover all those costs, so it will just come down to what an eye is worth and that will be decided by a couple of lawyers behind closed doors.

[Tzoid]

I can see the reason we live in such a lawsuit happy society these days.

 

If you cant differentiate between thinking it would be a great gesture for the Ryder Cup to take care of her, and them being LEGALLY compelled to do so, that is where we will part ways on this.

 

Not everything has to be someones fault to the tune of millions of dollars

 

I totally agree with you...... Pandora's Box and it could lead to way more restrictions on golf fans that attend tournaments.

[BeerPerHole]

That's very unfortunate. I feel for her and for Brooks. Will consider this more as I take my family to some of these events in the future. Never felt comfortable standing near the landing zone. Damn, a golf ball can really do some damage.

[farmer]

I suspect this poor woman will be compensated, but it will be quietly done, with an NDA attached, and no one admitting negligence.

[doublehans]

I suspect this poor woman will be compensated, but it will be quietly done, with an NDA attached, and no one admitting negligence.

 

True, that is the most likely scenario. And all our speculation will be moot because we wont ever know.....

[lowheel]

I hope her suit is tossed out. Sadly it wont be.

 

Its a shame when you start to feel bad for someone in an unfortunate situation, then they pull something like this. I feel less bad for her.....

 

Huh? Put yourself in her situation...she LOST AN EYE !!! What would you do ? :russian_roulette: The sponsors and organizers SHOULD give her a settlement. Repeat: SHE LOST AN EYE !!!...they have insurance and won't miss the money. 'nuff said

 

gofundme?

[MadGolfer76]

I hear Phil offered her a watch and a signed glove. I also hear it was turned down for some reason.

 

edit: I made myself sad... :(

[nsxguy]

 

It's an interesting thing if it was a driveable par 4.

 

A litigator could argue that it's an inherently negligent situation to have spectators standing unprotected in an area where, given the distance and expected accuracy, there is a very good chance they will be hit by a ball travelling at such high velocity.

 

It's not like spectators that line the fairway near a tee box since there is very little expectation a pro golfer would hit them.

 

Yep, the driveable par 4 aspect is what I keep bringing up. Can imagine them saying the crowd was allowed to go too close to the green.

 

Wouldn't the spectators be closer to the line of flight for a 300 yard drive on a normal par 4 or 5 than they would be on a driveable par 4 ?

 

I mean spectators don't seem to be nearly as close to the edges of a green as they are when standing in the rough wide of the fairways. :dntknw:

[jdl]

It's an interesting thing if it was a driveable par 4.

 

A litigator could argue that it's an inherently negligent situation to have spectators standing unprotected in an area where, given the distance and expected accuracy, there is a very good chance they will be hit by a ball travelling at such high velocity.

 

It's not like spectators that line the fairway near a tee box since there is very little expectation a pro golfer would hit them.

 

Yep, the driveable par 4 aspect is what I keep bringing up. Can imagine them saying the crowd was allowed to go too close to the green.

 

Wouldn't the spectators be closer to the line of flight for a 300 yard drive on a normal par 4 or 5 than they would be on a driveable par 4 ?

 

I mean spectators don't seem to be nearly as close to the edges of a green as they are when standing in the rough wide of the fairways. :dntknw:

 

I'd think they are much more concentrated in that same "landing area' when clustered around a green. And probably a lot more spectators there vs out near a fairway on a par 4/5. Usually more fans watching from the tees or around the green vs standing out in a fairway. Plus I'd guess that's not a very big green since it's normally a short par 4, not a par 5 where you might have a larger green.

[ray9898]

 

 

Huh? Put yourself in her situation...she LOST AN EYE !!! What would you do ? :russian_roulette: The sponsors and organizers SHOULD give her a settlement. Repeat: SHE LOST AN EYE !!!...they have insurance and won't miss the money. 'nuff said

 

The only thing that is missing with this post is a video of a toddler throwing a tantrum.

[rangersgoalie]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I’m pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

[nsxguy]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I’m pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

 

I'd be surprised if any of them DIDN'T have liability insurance of some sort.

 

I'm no lawyer but getting a settlement ?

 

I expect it's pretty hard to do and if it is done I expect there would be some sort of air tight non-disclosure agreement. ANY precedent of accepting liability in a case like this, rather than say, throw some $$$ the person's way as a "gesture", especially when the sport knows the courts would back them, would be an "admission" and set a dangerous precedent.

 

Then again, that's just MY "best guess".

[doublehans]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I’m pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

 

I'd be surprised if any of them DIDN'T have liability insurance of some sort.

 

I'm no lawyer but getting a settlement ?

 

I expect it's pretty hard to do and if it is done I expect there would be some sort of air tight non-disclosure agreement. ANY precedent of accepting liability in a case like this, rather than say, throw some $$$ the person's way as a "gesture", especially when the sport knows the courts would back them, would be an "admission" and set a dangerous precedent.

 

Then again, that's just MY "best guess".

 

A settlement would not constitute any precedent or “admission”. Of course, theyd rather people not know the settlement because it might encourage people to sue in the future (or make negotiations tougher) so there would be a nda. But settling doesnt hurt them otherwise or make precedent.

 

Its actually the opposite. This risk of precedent is if this goes to court and you get a ruling/judgement against you. One of the big reasons to settle in this situation is that risk of going to court isnt just losing money, its also getting precedent against you. You settle to avoid precedent.

[nsxguy]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I’m pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

 

I'd be surprised if any of them DIDN'T have liability insurance of some sort.

 

I'm no lawyer but getting a settlement ?

 

I expect it's pretty hard to do and if it is done I expect there would be some sort of air tight non-disclosure agreement. ANY precedent of accepting liability in a case like this, rather than say, throw some $$$ the person's way as a "gesture", especially when the sport knows the courts would back them, would be an "admission" and set a dangerous precedent.

 

Then again, that's just MY "best guess".

 

A settlement would not constitute any precedent or “admission”. Of course, theyd rather people not know the settlement because it might encourage people to sue in the future (or make negotiations tougher) so there would be a nda. But settling doesnt hurt them otherwise or make precedent.

 

Its actually the opposite. This risk of precedent is if this goes to court and you get a ruling/judgement against you. One of the big reasons to settle in this situation is that risk of going to court isnt just losing money, its also getting precedent against you. You settle to avoid precedent.

 

I'm not a lawyer, I said as much. Perhaps you are ? But it seems to me, a lay person, if an entity IS taken to court on this and there is evidence that they settled on a similar incident, as a defendant, you've got a problem. Or would that NOT be admissible in a court of law (assuming there's NO NDA, or possibly even if there IS ?) ?

 

While technically I suppose it's NOT(?) "precedent",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, judge, jury person,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[doublehans]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I’m pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

 

I'd be surprised if any of them DIDN'T have liability insurance of some sort.

 

I'm no lawyer but getting a settlement ?

 

I expect it's pretty hard to do and if it is done I expect there would be some sort of air tight non-disclosure agreement. ANY precedent of accepting liability in a case like this, rather than say, throw some $$$ the person's way as a "gesture", especially when the sport knows the courts would back them, would be an "admission" and set a dangerous precedent.

 

Then again, that's just MY "best guess".

 

A settlement would not constitute any precedent or “admission”. Of course, theyd rather people not know the settlement because it might encourage people to sue in the future (or make negotiations tougher) so there would be a nda. But settling doesnt hurt them otherwise or make precedent.

 

Its actually the opposite. This risk of precedent is if this goes to court and you get a ruling/judgement against you. One of the big reasons to settle in this situation is that risk of going to court isnt just losing money, its also getting precedent against you. You settle to avoid precedent.

 

I'm not a lawyer, I said as much. Perhaps you are ? But it seems to me, a lay person, if an entity IS taken to court on this and there is evidence that they settled on a similar incident, as a defendant, you've got a problem. Or would that NOT be admissible in a court of law (assuming there's NO NDA, or possibly even if there IS ?) ?

 

While technically I suppose it's NOT(?) "precedent",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, judge, jury person,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Right, you aren't forced to admit negligence when you settle. You basically just the other party off to drop their claim. So settlement couldn't be used as evidence in later cases to show negligence, you never admitted it. People pay all the time even when they don't think they did anything wrong (unfortunately), so courts don't hold that against them.

[bscinstnct]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I’m pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

 

I'd be surprised if any of them DIDN'T have liability insurance of some sort.

 

I'm no lawyer but getting a settlement ?

 

I expect it's pretty hard to do and if it is done I expect there would be some sort of air tight non-disclosure agreement. ANY precedent of accepting liability in a case like this, rather than say, throw some $$$ the person's way as a "gesture", especially when the sport knows the courts would back them, would be an "admission" and set a dangerous precedent.

 

Then again, that's just MY "best guess".

 

A settlement would not constitute any precedent or “admission”. Of course, theyd rather people not know the settlement because it might encourage people to sue in the future (or make negotiations tougher) so there would be a nda. But settling doesnt hurt them otherwise or make precedent.

 

Its actually the opposite. This risk of precedent is if this goes to court and you get a ruling/judgement against you. One of the big reasons to settle in this situation is that risk of going to court isnt just losing money, its also getting precedent against you. You settle to avoid precedent.

 

I'm not a lawyer, I said as much. Perhaps you are ? But it seems to me, a lay person, if an entity IS taken to court on this and there is evidence that they settled on a similar incident, as a defendant, you've got a problem. Or would that NOT be admissible in a court of law (assuming there's NO NDA, or possibly even if there IS ?) ?

 

While technically I suppose it's NOT(?) "precedent",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, judge, jury person,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I think legal settlement is not necessarily an "admission" of anything.

 

But if they just paid her bills without a settlement (a settlement constucted such that they admit nothing as far as liability) then that could be an acknowlegement of fault.

 

Not sure, though.

 

 

 

 

[doublehans]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I'm pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

 

I'd be surprised if any of them DIDN'T have liability insurance of some sort.

 

I'm no lawyer but getting a settlement ?

 

I expect it's pretty hard to do and if it is done I expect there would be some sort of air tight non-disclosure agreement. ANY precedent of accepting liability in a case like this, rather than say, throw some $$$ the person's way as a "gesture", especially when the sport knows the courts would back them, would be an "admission" and set a dangerous precedent.

 

Then again, that's just MY "best guess".

 

A settlement would not constitute any precedent or "admission". Of course, theyd rather people not know the settlement because it might encourage people to sue in the future (or make negotiations tougher) so there would be a nda. But settling doesnt hurt them otherwise or make precedent.

 

Its actually the opposite. This risk of precedent is if this goes to court and you get a ruling/judgement against you. One of the big reasons to settle in this situation is that risk of going to court isnt just losing money, its also getting precedent against you. You settle to avoid precedent.

 

I'm not a lawyer, I said as much. Perhaps you are ? But it seems to me, a lay person, if an entity IS taken to court on this and there is evidence that they settled on a similar incident, as a defendant, you've got a problem. Or would that NOT be admissible in a court of law (assuming there's NO NDA, or possibly even if there IS ?) ?

 

While technically I suppose it's NOT(?) "precedent",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, judge, jury person,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I think legal settlement is not necessarily an "admission" of anything.

 

But if they just paid her bills without a settlement (a settlement constucted such that they admit nothing as far as liability) then that could be an acknowlegement of fault.

 

Not sure, though.

 

You can pay medical bills without a settlement and it won't constitute any acknowledgment of fault. Paying someone's medical bills isnt held against you. Well, at least not in the US. This could be one of those things where French law matters tho. Same settlements. For all the convo in here about this stuff, the elephant is that most everyone is coming from some sort of US or UK type legal system.

[nsxguy]

Pga members have liability insurance

Tournaments in US have liability insurance

 

I’m pretty sure a decent settlement will be reached.

 

Unfortunately, getting to the settlement in the US often requires some legal wrangling.

 

Have zero idea on French law

 

I'd be surprised if any of them DIDN'T have liability insurance of some sort.

 

I'm no lawyer but getting a settlement ?

 

I expect it's pretty hard to do and if it is done I expect there would be some sort of air tight non-disclosure agreement. ANY precedent of accepting liability in a case like this, rather than say, throw some $$$ the person's way as a "gesture", especially when the sport knows the courts would back them, would be an "admission" and set a dangerous precedent.

 

Then again, that's just MY "best guess".

 

A settlement would not constitute any precedent or “admission”. Of course, theyd rather people not know the settlement because it might encourage people to sue in the future (or make negotiations tougher) so there would be a nda. But settling doesnt hurt them otherwise or make precedent.

 

Its actually the opposite. This risk of precedent is if this goes to court and you get a ruling/judgement against you. One of the big reasons to settle in this situation is that risk of going to court isnt just losing money, its also getting precedent against you. You settle to avoid precedent.

 

I'm not a lawyer, I said as much. Perhaps you are ? But it seems to me, a lay person, if an entity IS taken to court on this and there is evidence that they settled on a similar incident, as a defendant, you've got a problem. Or would that NOT be admissible in a court of law (assuming there's NO NDA, or possibly even if there IS ?) ?

 

While technically I suppose it's NOT(?) "precedent",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, judge, jury person,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Right, you aren't forced to admit negligence when you settle. You basically just the other party off to drop their claim. So settlement couldn't be used as evidence in later cases to show negligence, you never admitted it. People pay all the time even when they don't think they did anything wrong (unfortunately), so courts don't hold that against them.

 

So does this mean you ARE a lawyer ?

 

One may not be admitting anything but if it's public knowledge and allowed to be introduced in court,,,,,,,,,,, well, there are people in the jury, people with emotions, and we can see how many posters in this thread alone aren't concerned with legalities, just that "she lost her eye, pay her". :dntknw:

[doublehans]

no, but a court wouldnt allow it as evidence in order to prove fault. would just be inadmissible. the fact that someone was injured is different tho. theres still a lady without an eye.

[IVM]

I believe that if you gave her anything other than medical assistance you would be accepting liability and facing legal proceedings.

[bscinstnct]

 

 

You can pay medical bills without a settlement and it won't constitute any acknowledgment of fault. Paying someone's medical bills isnt held against you. Well, at least not in the US. This could be one of those things where French law matters tho. Same settlements. For all the convo in here about this stuff, the elephant is that most everyone is coming from some sort of US or UK type legal system.

 

Dh, dropping the knowledge ; )

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/lawyerphilippines.org/2017/07/06/is-paying-for-medical-expenses-an-admission-of-guilt/amp/

 

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. Offering to pay for these expenses cannot be used against you.

[nsxguy]

 

You can pay medical bills without a settlement and it won't constitute any acknowledgment of fault. Paying someone's medical bills isnt held against you. Well, at least not in the US. This could be one of those things where French law matters tho. Same settlements. For all the convo in here about this stuff, the elephant is that most everyone is coming from some sort of US or UK type legal system.

 

Dh, dropping the knowledge ; )

 

https://www.google.c...n-of-guilt/amp/

 

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. Offering to pay for these expenses cannot be used against you.

 

Ummmmm,,,,,, Lawyers in the Philippines ? :)

 

In any case I was not referring to it so much as being admissible as "evidence" but whether or not it can be brought up at all.

 

Again, the jurors are human beings and while some of them might listen to the judge's instructions and follow them to the letter, others might remember the payment as a tacit admittance of "guilt". :dntknw:

[Naptime]

Story online that she was disappointed the fans in the area were taking photos rather than helping her. I'm not at all surprised though. But unless she was surrounded by ophthalmologists it's unlikely any of the fans would have done more good than harm to her eye. http://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/eyeforum/tutorials/trauma.htm

[Pepperturbo]

I hope her suit is tossed out. Sadly it wont be.

 

Its a shame when you start to feel bad for someone in an unfortunate situation, then they pull something like this. I feel less bad for her.....

 

Huh? Put yourself in her situation...she LOST AN EYE !!! What would you do ? :russian_roulette: The sponsors and organizers SHOULD give her a settlement...SHE LOST AN EYE...and they won't miss the money. 'nuff said

 

I like this post. All the internet tough guys posting in this thread saying she's owed nothing would be doing exactly what she is doing right now if they were in her shoes. You see a payday, you grasp it. Especially if you have been permanently disfigured/severely injured.

 

It's why tort lawyers are rich men.

 

This may surprise you but there are a great many people that hold values high and accept responsibility for their choices.

[Hawkeye77]

Mark Roe's view. https://www.skysport...e-says-mark-roe

 

Misleading. This isn't his view on the incident. This is a very prescient article on how pros are not yelling fore when they need to be written before the incident.

 

Not one bit misleading and not a fair characterization. I never said or suggested it was his view on the "incident", was very specifically responding to posts talking about pros yelling "fore" on tour and the idea of "tactical non shouting", lol.

 

Get your facts right before popping off.