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

[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.

 

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.

 

Whoa, what are you talking about. I was complimenting the article. Saying it was misleading wasn't meant to be a slam against you, more of how amazing prescient the article was given it was written well before the incident. Popping off? lol Sorry, but my post must have come off a lot differently than intended.

[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.

 

Whoa, what are you talking about. I was complimenting the article. Saying it was misleading wasn't meant to be a slam against you, more of how amazing prescient the article was given it was written well before the incident. Popping off? lol Sorry, but my post must have come off a lot differently than intended.

 

Then quit making my popping off really look like popping off! Lol, didn't know how else to take the misleading remark, my fault for misunderstanding! Sorry about that.

[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.

 

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.

 

Whoa, what are you talking about. I was complimenting the article. Saying it was misleading wasn't meant to be a slam against you, more of how amazing prescient the article was given it was written well before the incident. Popping off? lol Sorry, but my post must have come off a lot differently than intended.

 

Then quit making my popping off really look like popping off! Lol, didn't know how else to take the misleading remark, my fault for misunderstanding! Sorry about that.

 

No worries!

[Dr. Block]

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.

 

Until one of their eyeballs explodes under questionable circumstances.

[Bingo1976]

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.

 

She went to a golf tournament, not stepped into a paintball game without goggles.

 

Someone needs to settle with her quickly before it gets out of hand and all tournaments are held behind 100 foot high plexiglass.

[bscinstnct]

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.

 

She went to a golf tournament, not stepped into a paintball game without goggles.

 

Someone needs to settle with her quickly before it gets out of hand and all tournaments are held behind 100 foot high plexiglass.

 

With whom would you think the liability lies?

 

Are the French

 

Looking the other way?

 

[PixlPutterman]

 

 

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

[Dr. Block]

 

 

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I’m sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

[smeech8000]

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

To what extent does the public need to be reminded to be vigilant towards their own safety nowadays? Is walking onto a golf course, where a primary element of the event in question is high-speed projectiles often traveling outside the intended line of play, and that fact reiterated on the back of the ticket that gives you access to said event, not enough risk to make oneself concerned about their own safety?

 

Many developed countries have things like motorcyclist helmet laws and seatbelt laws in place which require passengers to follow these safety measures... because apparently common sense is not all that common.

 

RC/PC are unique events in that there are, at maximum, 24 players on the course at one time... it is not difficult to monitor groups' progress and know when a group is playing on your hole. I contend that the organizer does have a duty to warn spectators of wayward shots, which was done in this case - the group at the tee did so.

 

What about the spotters near the landing area? As many have said, it can be difficult to see balls coming off the tee from 300 yards away; most marshals are volunteers and may or may not have the ability to perform this function. I believe their primary purpose with regard to wayward shots is 1) finding balls and 2) crowd control, both in order to facilitate play.

 

Was the organizer negligent in their placement of gallery ropes on this hole? If the crowd was permitted the same proximity to the fairway/green on this hole as they were the fairway on any other driving hole then why would this be different (due to its status as a "driveable" par 4)? Are players not expected to have the same accuracy with a driver regardless of whether the intended target is a fairway or green? I would think average dispersion would actually be tighter on the driveable par 4 where accuracy is at a greater premium.

[nsxguy]

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

Yes, she was. On the back of the ticket.

[Dr. Block]

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

To what extent does the public need to be reminded to be vigilant towards their own safety nowadays? Is walking onto a golf course, where a primary element of the event in question is high-speed projectiles often traveling outside the intended line of play, and that fact reiterated on the back of the ticket that gives you access to said event, not enough risk to make oneself concerned about their own safety?

 

Many developed countries have things like motorcyclist helmet laws and seatbelt laws in place which require passengers to follow these safety measures... because apparently common sense is not all that common.

 

RC/PC are unique events in that there are, at maximum, 24 players on the course at one time... it is not difficult to monitor groups' progress and know when a group is playing on your hole. I contend that the organizer does have a duty to warn spectators of wayward shots, which was done in this case - the group at the tee did so.

 

What about the spotters near the landing area? As many have said, it can be difficult to see balls coming off the tee from 300 yards away; most marshals are volunteers and may or may not have the ability to perform this function. I believe their primary purpose with regard to wayward shots is 1) finding balls and 2) crowd control, both in order to facilitate play.

 

Was the organizer negligent in their placement of gallery ropes on this hole? If the crowd was permitted the same proximity to the fairway/green on this hole as they were the fairway on any other driving hole then why would this be different (due to its status as a "driveable" par 4)? Are players not expected to have the same accuracy with a driver regardless of whether the intended target is a fairway or green? I would think average dispersion would actually be tighter on the driveable par 4 where accuracy is at a greater premium.

 

We are rehashing things that have already been discussed in this thread. But my quick answers...the marshals are supposed to work together. The ones in the landing area watch for the signal from the tee and give warning to the side of the hole and gallery accordingly. Did they do that to their expected abilities? Gallery ropes placed around a par 4 green with the expectation of it receiving wedge shots could be much closer then ropes placed along the edges of a 30 yard wide fairway. Is that negligent?

 

We can argue all day long on this, and to be honest, I really don't care all that much. We might as well wait and see how it all plays out. But it would appear she is going to pursue some sort of law suit, and I don't blame her at all for doing it.

[Dr. Block]

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

Yes, she was. On the back of the ticket.

 

It's already been discussed in this thread that the back of the ticket is not a binding statement. Its little more then a suggestion and warning

[PixlPutterman]

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

Yes, read the ticket she purchased. Or maybe the 50 or so golf balls she already saw flying around before the one was hit that struck her. Oh and people yelling fore (which was verified)

 

Organizers shouldn't be responsible for basic common sense.

 

How many times do you have to be warned before its considered a binding statement?

[PixlPutterman]

Fans are ROUTINELY hit with errant tee shots at events. This ball just happened to strike in the most unfortunate spot.

 

That doesnt all of the sudden change the legal responsibilities of all parties involved.

[Ferguson]

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

To what extent does the public need to be reminded to be vigilant towards their own safety nowadays? Is walking onto a golf course, where a primary element of the event in question is high-speed projectiles often traveling outside the intended line of play, and that fact reiterated on the back of the ticket that gives you access to said event, not enough risk to make oneself concerned about their own safety?

 

Many developed countries have things like motorcyclist helmet laws and seatbelt laws in place which require passengers to follow these safety measures... because apparently common sense is not all that common.

 

RC/PC are unique events in that there are, at maximum, 24 players on the course at one time... it is not difficult to monitor groups' progress and know when a group is playing on your hole. I contend that the organizer does have a duty to warn spectators of wayward shots, which was done in this case - the group at the tee did so.

 

What about the spotters near the landing area? As many have said, it can be difficult to see balls coming off the tee from 300 yards away; most marshals are volunteers and may or may not have the ability to perform this function. I believe their primary purpose with regard to wayward shots is 1) finding balls and 2) crowd control, both in order to facilitate play.

 

Was the organizer negligent in their placement of gallery ropes on this hole? If the crowd was permitted the same proximity to the fairway/green on this hole as they were the fairway on any other driving hole then why would this be different (due to its status as a "driveable" par 4)? Are players not expected to have the same accuracy with a driver regardless of whether the intended target is a fairway or green? I would think average dispersion would actually be tighter on the driveable par 4 where accuracy is at a greater premium.

 

We are rehashing things that have already been discussed in this thread. But my quick answers...the marshals are supposed to work together. The ones in the landing area watch for the signal from the tee and give warning to the side of the hole and gallery accordingly. Did they do that to their expected abilities? Gallery ropes placed around a par 4 green with the expectation of it receiving wedge shots could be much closer then ropes placed along the edges of a 30 yard wide fairway. Is that negligent?

 

We can argue all day long on this, and to be honest, I really don't care all that much. We might as well wait and see how it all plays out. But it would appear she is going to pursue some sort of law suit, and I don't blame her at all for doing it.

 

 

 

She will file suit and she will win, or settle.

 

If the GD top brass at professional golf associations want to bring golf to all people and bring all people to golf, they should at the very least provide the means at any cost to protect the health and safety of the darn patrons.

 

These darn event coordinators sit in booths all day when they should be on the ready to make sure the marshals and on-course assistants are keeping people at a safe distance. This could have been avoided.

 

Hindsight is 20/20

[raynorfan1]

She will file suit and she will win, or settle.

 

I don't know enough about French law to comment on her probability of winning; but we had a similar circumstance at a baseball game where a spectator was hit in the face with a foul ball line-drive. The spectator had significant injuries, sued, and lost. And that is in a circumstance where the team had control over the place the spectator was.

 

I would venture that this would be a pretty tough case for a plaintiff to win in the United States.

[deadsolid...shank]

 

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

To what extent does the public need to be reminded to be vigilant towards their own safety nowadays? Is walking onto a golf course, where a primary element of the event in question is high-speed projectiles often traveling outside the intended line of play, and that fact reiterated on the back of the ticket that gives you access to said event, not enough risk to make oneself concerned about their own safety?

 

Many developed countries have things like motorcyclist helmet laws and seatbelt laws in place which require passengers to follow these safety measures... because apparently common sense is not all that common.

 

RC/PC are unique events in that there are, at maximum, 24 players on the course at one time... it is not difficult to monitor groups' progress and know when a group is playing on your hole. I contend that the organizer does have a duty to warn spectators of wayward shots, which was done in this case - the group at the tee did so.

 

What about the spotters near the landing area? As many have said, it can be difficult to see balls coming off the tee from 300 yards away; most marshals are volunteers and may or may not have the ability to perform this function. I believe their primary purpose with regard to wayward shots is 1) finding balls and 2) crowd control, both in order to facilitate play.

 

Was the organizer negligent in their placement of gallery ropes on this hole? If the crowd was permitted the same proximity to the fairway/green on this hole as they were the fairway on any other driving hole then why would this be different (due to its status as a "driveable" par 4)? Are players not expected to have the same accuracy with a driver regardless of whether the intended target is a fairway or green? I would think average dispersion would actually be tighter on the driveable par 4 where accuracy is at a greater premium.

 

We are rehashing things that have already been discussed in this thread. But my quick answers...the marshals are supposed to work together. The ones in the landing area watch for the signal from the tee and give warning to the side of the hole and gallery accordingly. Did they do that to their expected abilities? Gallery ropes placed around a par 4 green with the expectation of it receiving wedge shots could be much closer then ropes placed along the edges of a 30 yard wide fairway. Is that negligent?

 

We can argue all day long on this, and to be honest, I really don't care all that much. We might as well wait and see how it all plays out. But it would appear she is going to pursue some sort of law suit, and I don't blame her at all for doing it.

 

 

 

She will file suit and she will win, or settle.

 

If the GD top brass at professional golf associations want to bring golf to all people and bring all people to golf, they should at the very least provide the means at any cost to protect the health and safety of the darn patrons.

 

These darn event coordinators sit in booths all day when they should be on the ready to make sure the marshals and on-course assistants are keeping people at a safe distance. This could have been avoided.

 

Hindsight is 20/20

 

If you want everyone at a safe distance, then have them stay home and watch it on TV. On courses, especially ones which have holes in close proximity to one another, is there really a safe place? Certainly we can’t have grandstands anymore then, we’ve all seen the balls blasted up into them.

 

Is there really any place on a golf course that has a tournament going on that is really safe?

[nsxguy]

Until one of their eyeballs explode under questionable circumstances.

 

How exactly was that a questionable circumstance?

 

She's standing along a fairway with people hitting golf balls towards them? Seems pretty straightforward and self explanatory from a risk aspect.

 

Was she given proper warning? Were the ropes too close to the green considering the tee set up? Those are the first two that come to mind. I'm sure the lawyers will come up with more should they have too.

 

Yes, she was. On the back of the ticket.

 

It's already been discussed in this thread that the back of the ticket is not a binding statement. Its little more then a suggestion and warning

 

It's also been discussed in this thread that the back of the ticket has served as cause to NOT pay off on these types of incidents, at least in the United States. So in the USA it's quite a bit more than a suggestion

 

But that doesn't stop YOU from bringing up the same old, same old.

 

So I guess it's OK that I remind you,,,,,,,, since you're OK with reminding us,,,,,,,,,,,

[Ferguson]

This was an "emotionally-driven" fan base turned up to full volume by an unhealthy desire to win. The tournament organizers should have known this. More could have been done to keep these very emotional fans back and out of the way. I saw no one waving flags before Brooks hit the shot. The venue needs to step up and be responsible.

[rawdog]

With whom would you think the liability lies?

 

Are the French

 

Looking the other way?

 

I can't imagine someone turning a blind eye in this situation.

[Forged4ever]

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

[Hawkeye77]

With whom would you think the liability lies?

 

Are the French

 

Looking the other way?

 

I can't imagine someone turning a blind eye in this situation.

 

Since I'll already be there I'll turn up the burners in hell for your arrival!!'

[Ferguson]

With whom would you think the liability lies?

 

Are the French

 

Looking the other way?

 

I can't imagine someone turning a blind eye in this situation.

 

Since I'll already be there I'll turn up the burners in hell for your arrival!!'

 

See........you there.

[alexdub]

1. Fans are ROUTINELY hit with errant tee shots at events. This ball just happened to strike in the most unfortunate spot.

 

2. That doesn't all of the sudden change the legal responsibilities of all parties involved.

 

Had to pick the low-hanging fruit here. The first point you made completely contradicts with your second one, which I thought was kind of funny. Regular occurrence of a seemingly random event absolutely, completely, and unequivocally changes the legal responsibilities of those involved:

 

Let's imagine we're in pre-trial for this case. The court is responding to the European Tour's motion to dismiss. Let's pretend you're serving as counsel for the co-defendants. How do you respond when the court likely asks: Is it generally foreseeable that injuries can occur at golf tournaments? How regularly do these injuries occur? What measures have defendants taken to stop future injuries? Have defendants ever paid or settled a damage claim? Is the loss of sight due to injury a natural and probable consequence of attending a golf match?

 

In a court's purview, damages (even extra-ordinary damages) resulting from a semi-regular and foreseeable event are completely relevant to the assessment of legal responsibility. It's easy to forget — but courts, the common law, and statutes don't define legal terms like liability, negligence, risk, and waiver in the same way the general public does (for good reason).

 

I'm picking on Putterman here, but 90% of the takes in here are off-base in their legal analysis.

[cgbm]

I have no legal analysis as im not a lawyer.

 

I am and only have stated what i consider to be a MORAL analysis here.

[Skhacker]

Wish her the best. I'd much rather have my eyesight than a couple million extra in the bank. Hope this helps spectators of all sports pay more attention, as well as event organizers better mitigate risk.

[farmer]

1. Fans are ROUTINELY hit with errant tee shots at events. This ball just happened to strike in the most unfortunate spot.

 

2. That doesn't all of the sudden change the legal responsibilities of all parties involved.

 

Had to pick the low-hanging fruit here. The first point you made completely contradicts with your second one, which I thought was kind of funny. Regular occurrence of a seemingly random event absolutely, completely, and unequivocally changes the legal responsibilities of those involved:

 

Let's imagine we're in pre-trial for this case. The court is responding to the European Tour's motion to dismiss. Let's pretend you're serving as counsel for the co-defendants. How do you respond when the court likely asks: Is it generally foreseeable that injuries can occur at golf tournaments? How regularly do these injuries occur? What measures have defendants taken to stop future injuries? Have defendants ever paid or settled a damage claim? Is the loss of sight due to injury a natural and probable consequence of attending a golf match?

 

In a court's purview, damages (even extra-ordinary damages) resulting from a semi-regular and foreseeable event are completely relevant to the assessment of legal responsibility. It's easy to forget — but courts, the common law, and statutes don't define legal terms like liability, negligence, risk, and waiver in the same way the general public does (for good reason).

 

I'm picking on Putterman here, but 90% of the takes in here are off-base in their legal analysis.

As I posted earlier, she will be paid, NDA, no admitting liability. This will never go to trial. Even if the Euro Tour, RC, or defendants won, it would be a huge PR disaster, and cost a lot of money. This poor woman should have been more aware of where she was and the dangers inherent to her position, but possibly a first timer? If I hear "FORE", I go turtle, but maybe she just didn't know.

[deadsolid...shank]

With whom would you think the liability lies?

 

Are the French

 

Looking the other way?

 

I can't imagine someone turning a blind eye in this situation.

 

Since I'll already be there I'll turn up the burners in hell for your arrival!!'

 

See........you there.

 

I don’t think you two are going to be having any visitors!

[PixlPutterman]

1. Fans are ROUTINELY hit with errant tee shots at events. This ball just happened to strike in the most unfortunate spot.

 

2. That doesn't all of the sudden change the legal responsibilities of all parties involved.

 

Had to pick the low-hanging fruit here. The first point you made completely contradicts with your second one, which I thought was kind of funny. Regular occurrence of a seemingly random event absolutely, completely, and unequivocally changes the legal responsibilities of those involved:

 

Let's imagine we're in pre-trial for this case. The court is responding to the European Tour's motion to dismiss. Let's pretend you're serving as counsel for the co-defendants. How do you respond when the court likely asks: Is it generally foreseeable that injuries can occur at golf tournaments? How regularly do these injuries occur? What measures have defendants taken to stop future injuries? Have defendants ever paid or settled a damage claim? Is the loss of sight due to injury a natural and probable consequence of attending a golf match?

 

In a court's purview, damages (even extra-ordinary damages) resulting from a semi-regular and foreseeable event are completely relevant to the assessment of legal responsibility. It's easy to forget — but courts, the common law, and statutes don't define legal terms like liability, negligence, risk, and waiver in the same way the general public does (for good reason).

 

I'm picking on Putterman here, but 90% of the takes in here are off-base in their legal analysis.

 

So legal responsibility changes with the degree of injury? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

You go to a baseball game and dont pay attention to a foul ball......one person it hit in the arm and get a bruise.....the other in the face..... the baseball team is only responsible for the second person not paying attention?

 

If YOU place your self in harms way, the degree of your injury does not absolve you of your inability to pay attention.

[Dr. Block]

1. Fans are ROUTINELY hit with errant tee shots at events. This ball just happened to strike in the most unfortunate spot.

 

2. That doesn't all of the sudden change the legal responsibilities of all parties involved.

 

Had to pick the low-hanging fruit here. The first point you made completely contradicts with your second one, which I thought was kind of funny. Regular occurrence of a seemingly random event absolutely, completely, and unequivocally changes the legal responsibilities of those involved:

 

Let's imagine we're in pre-trial for this case. The court is responding to the European Tour's motion to dismiss. Let's pretend you're serving as counsel for the co-defendants. How do you respond when the court likely asks: Is it generally foreseeable that injuries can occur at golf tournaments? How regularly do these injuries occur? What measures have defendants taken to stop future injuries? Have defendants ever paid or settled a damage claim? Is the loss of sight due to injury a natural and probable consequence of attending a golf match?

 

In a court's purview, damages (even extra-ordinary damages) resulting from a semi-regular and foreseeable event are completely relevant to the assessment of legal responsibility. It's easy to forget — but courts, the common law, and statutes don't define legal terms like liability, negligence, risk, and waiver in the same way the general public does (for good reason).

 

I'm picking on Putterman here, but 90% of the takes in here are off-base in their legal analysis.

 

So legal responsibility changes with the degree of injury? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

You go to a baseball game and dont pay attention to a foul ball......one person it hit in the arm and get a bruise.....the other in the face..... the baseball team is only responsible for the second person not paying attention?

 

If YOU place your self in harms way, the degree of your injury does not absolve you of your inability to pay attention.

 

Responsibility doesn't change, the likely-hood of action may though. The responsibility never changes. He's saying that your statement outlining the frequency of people struck by golf balls is specifically why an event organizer or golf tournament body would see, understand, and be insured against such liabilities.