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

[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.

 

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.

 

Those are good points that I did not consider.

[nsxguy]

same language is on lift tickets when you purchase for skiing....means nothing. you can still sue....and win.

 

Very true. Here is a good article on a similar incident in pro baseball, and a breakdown of disclaimers.

 

https://www.insureon...-liability.aspx

 

So what was the end result ? Latest I google could find was that it was being bumped up to an appeals court (in 2014).

 

I referenced this earlier in the thread.

 

I don't pretend to have done a lot of research into it but I quickly found this paper on a Denver Law School's website. I scanned through it but basically if the risk is inherent in playing the game, forget about a lawsuit. https://www.law.du.edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/05/05-Augustine.pdf

 

Some "other form of negligence" is a different story. And note this is USA, not France.

[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.

 

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

 

Absurd?

 

What is the purpose of these events?

 

Why in the world would a solution that affects other peoples play be acceptable?

[nsxguy]

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.

 

Can you post any authoritative proof of this ?

 

In my previous post I posted a link to a Law School's opinion/facts about this very thing. Can you provide us with a link to something similar saying the opposite ? i.e. supporting your POV ? TIA

 

I've also read that up until the 1950s, spectators did win these sorts of suits but since then the precedent has been set that spectators take the inherent risks associated with the event being played. It's up to the spectator to be vigilant and/or protect themselves.

 

And apparently there are any number of lawyers who won't even take this kind of case. After all, they (mostly ?) only get paid if they win.

 

Somebody else said they "can and will sue". This is perfectly true BUT winning is quite another thing. Then again, this happened in France and most everything talked about is referencing the USA so who knows what'll happen ?

[Event^Horizon]

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".

 

Now you are being ridiculous. How many people have been killed in professional tournaments by a wayward golf shot? Please list their names. How many have been hit by an errant shot? If you don't know going onto the grounds that there is a chance you could get hit by a golf ball, then your ability to function cognitively is sorely impaired.

[lopey986]

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".

 

If I take my kid to a golf tournament we're not gonna stand 300 yards out from professional golfers hitting their golf balls, lmao.

[nsxguy]

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".

 

I don't mean to sound cold nor unsympathetic but whose responsibility is it to keep your kid safe ?

 

If you were at a tournament with a kid would you and he stand where golf balls, especially at very high speed, might land ? If so, possibly you're the problem ?

 

I've never had any kids but even for myself, I ain't standing there. I'm not standing within 90* left or right of someone hitting a golf ball at high speeds.

 

As Jeff and myself said earlier in the thread there are spectators standing within 10-20 feet of a line directly in front of a guy hitting a line drive from under a tree out of the rough.Sooner or later, someone is going to get seriously hurt or even killed.

 

Of course the family will sue, and even possibly win a negligence suit (for the marshalls not taking reasonable precautions and keeping the crowd further out of the line of danger), but that won't bring the spectator back.

[MtlJeff]

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 mentioned, I believe you can assume certain levels of risk when you engage in an activity. But things like serious bodily harm I don't believe you can just agree to waive that . At least in some countries ...I took some law 15 years ago and I recall some cited cases (though not in golf) but maybe I'm wrong. If you have knowledge on this subject that isn't opinion I would like to hear it actually.

[ebrasmus21]

nsxguy:

 

There have been lawsuits in baseball and hockey and I'm sure every other major sport for fans being injured in one way or another. I think you might be missing my point. The tone of numerous posts in this thread is something like: "well they had a disclaimer, nuff said, move on people." My entire point is that it isn't that simple and anyone or anything that has a disclaimer can still be sued.

 

I can provide you proof of current or past lawsuits if you'd like but that only proves that despite disclaimers being in place a lawsuit was still filed and fought in court. Maybe some decisions went in favor of the defendant and maybe a couple went in favor of the plaintiff but how could there possibly be any lawsuits at all when the disclaimer tries to pass 100% of the risk onto the individual?

 

Again, my point is that it's more complicated than simply having a disclaimer on a ticket-stub.

[Oufcfan]

Whatever the rights and wrongs, or indeed the legal responsibility involved here, I would have thought that the 2018 approach to situations like this would be to have a “gofundme” or similar set up.

 

[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".

 

Now you are being ridiculous. How many people have been killed in professional tournaments by a wayward golf shot? Please list their names. How many have been hit by an errant shot? If you don't know going onto the grounds that there is a chance you could get hit by a golf ball, then your ability to function cognitively is sorely impaired.

 

If it is such a rare occurrence, then why do they try to "waive" all responsibility?

[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".

 

If I take my kid to a golf tournament we're not gonna stand 300 yards out from professional golfers hitting their golf balls, lmao.

 

Or have your kid in NHL/MLB stadium? Have you risk assessed all the events you take your kid into how well?

[tiderider]

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.

 

hogwash ... he can't bring back her eye, and the euro tour has already said they'd take care of her (presumably means the medical bills) ...

 

don't wanna get hit by a golf ball? ...

 

learn where to stand and how to pay attention at a golf tournament ... simple as that ...

[terrell75]

I wonder what the elapsed time was between the incident and the counsel?

[gioguy21]

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".

 

Now you are being ridiculous. How many people have been killed in professional tournaments by a wayward golf shot? Please list their names. How many have been hit by an errant shot? If you don't know going onto the grounds that there is a chance you could get hit by a golf ball, then your ability to function cognitively is sorely impaired.

 

If it is such a rare occurrence, then why do they try to "waive" all responsibility?

lol clearly you don't know how insurance works either then do you?

 

smh.

[Potatohead]

I am guessing legal counsel for the event organizer will be requesting her phone records

[bmaas03]

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.

don't wanna get hit by a golf ball? ...

 

learn where to stand and how to pay attention at a golf tournament ... simple as that ...

 

Not as simple as you think when you consider how far and how far off line some of the players hit it these days. Behind The tee box is the only place you can be assured not to get hit, (and even then there are exceptions) no matter where you stand or how much you pay attention.

[Jack Pearsall]

For the record, JP only attended two pro tournaments as a fan, one was the US Open at Olympic.

Played the course some so was curious to see pros but that’s the last one he’d attend.

It’s crowded, hard to see anything, long lines at food stalls and bathrooms, ...98% white people, who as a group are probably the least fun people in

The World, sorry Glfwrxers, but it’s true...did get to see Jack N. play one of his last PGA US Opens, which made up for everything. His hip was a mess.

He said, “Hi.” To Jack Pearsall. Felt like JP had been hit in the head by a golf ball, metaphorically speaking...

 

 

[Swisstrader98]

She should be asking for 10% of Koepka’s winnings going forward!

 

Just kidding but tour organizers, the PGA, Brooke himself and many other should be thrilled she’s ONLY asking for reimbursement of medical cost. For Christ’s sake, the woman’s eye exploded and this is a life altering event. My guess is her phone was ringing off the wall wall with personal injury lawyers thinking this one is good for a few million...and they would win. Small print and disclaimers on ticket stubs have ZERO meaning in these cases. Not a frivolous case and she could sue the pants out of them for this incident.

 

And Koepka gave her a glove??!!

[Hawkeye77]

She goes to another Ryder Cup the beginning of our national anthem is going to be a killer.

 

 

 

Note:

 

And no, I don't wish her any harm and truly wish she could recover fully and don't care about her frivolous lawsuit, just having a SNL/Second City moment, so there - I thought that.

 

Sue me.

 

Edit: And sometimes our stupid thoughts don't need to be typed - okay, now out of the Ryder Cup threads for a few days.

[ebrasmus21]

She goes to another Ryder Cup the beginning of our national anthem is going to be a killer.

 

 

 

Note:

 

And no, I don't wish her any harm and truly wish she could recover fully and don't care about her frivolous lawsuit, just having a SNL/Second City moment, so there - I thought that.

 

Sue me.

 

Can you please add a disclaimer to your signature line, thanks.

[Golfer4Life]

I’m also suing Koepka for all the psychlogical distress I had to endured while watching. I’m glad I won’t live long enough to see the total collapse of society.

[gatorpedsMD]

http://www.espn.com/...loses-sight-eye

 

 

damn that sux

 

just when u thought it couldn't get any worse than the Euro beat down and Reed drama.....

[Golfer4Life]

http://www.espn.com/...loses-sight-eye

 

 

damn that sux

 

just when u thought it couldn't get any worse than the Euro beat down and Reed drama.....

 

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/24864974/spectator-struck-ryder-cup-brooks-koepka-shot-loses-sight-eye

 

 

damn that sux

 

It does, but some people in here make it sound like Koepka took dead aim. “Yeah, yeah sue him, take his money, yeah.....”. Spare me, what happened to personal responsibility.

[MtlJeff]

I’m also suing Koepka for all the psychlogical distress I had to endured while watching. I’m glad I won’t live long enough to see the total collapse of society.

 

Its been mentioned earlier but I strongly doubt any lawsuit will involve Koepka

[nsxguy]

 

Can you post any authoritative proof of this ?

 

In my previous post I posted a link to a Law School's opinion/facts about this very thing. Can you provide us with a link to something similar saying the opposite ? i.e. supporting your POV ? TIA

 

I've also read that up until the 1950s, spectators did win these sorts of suits but since then the precedent has been set that spectators take the inherent risks associated with the event being played. It's up to the spectator to be vigilant and/or protect themselves.

 

And apparently there are any number of lawyers who won't even take this kind of case. After all, they (mostly ?) only get paid if they win.

 

Somebody else said they "can and will sue". This is perfectly true BUT winning is quite another thing. Then again, this happened in France and most everything talked about is referencing the USA so who knows what'll happen ?

 

nsxguy:

 

There have been lawsuits in baseball and hockey and I'm sure every other major sport for fans being injured in one way or another. I think you might be missing my point. The tone of numerous posts in this thread is something like: "well they had a disclaimer, nuff said, move on people." My entire point is that it isn't that simple and anyone or anything that has a disclaimer can still be sued.

 

I can provide you proof of current or past lawsuits if you'd like but that only proves that despite disclaimers being in place a lawsuit was still filed and fought in court. Maybe some decisions went in favor of the defendant and maybe a couple went in favor of the plaintiff but how could there possibly be any lawsuits at all when the disclaimer tries to pass 100% of the risk onto the individual?

 

Again, my point is that it's more complicated than simply having a disclaimer on a ticket-stub.

 

I got your point. In fact, I basically agreed with it with the highlighted portion in the quoted post above.

 

But while I agree the law is more complicated than just saying "We ain't responsible" on a ticket (or anywhere else for that matter), my point is that, from what I've read, plaintiffs seldom win these types of cases.

 

Feel free to post links or other authoritative proof that the plaintiffs WIN these suits without something rather out of the ordinary, i.e. other than acts that occur during the normal course of events at these events, and I will be happy to read it.

 

TIA

[Hawkeye77]

Not seeing too many experts on French civil law chiming in and that's what controls, and it has been undergoing substantial changes for years. I'm certainly not one, lol, and not researching any.

 

She was asserting the tournament's responsibility as she left the hospital, so she was definitely determined and of the litigation mindset (not saying that wasn't justified under French law, who knows).

 

No idea what the relationships are among the PGA, Euro Tour and course so far as how things were drawn up/set up/arranged for liability for the event.

 

Plenty of yells of "fore". Diisclaimers are not always 100% guarantees of escape for event hosts, I'm sure some expert will be found to opine about the location of the gallery ropes and the probability of harm in her location given the hole setup, etc. and again, in the end, it will be a matter of how that all fits under the construct of French law in terms of liability.

 

And who knows how insurance works in France, but it is possible she is entitled to an amount under the tournament's policy (using term loosely to mean anyone who had anything that may cover some kind of liability for what she suffered) regardless of liability because of the injury suffered that would be applied to her medical expenses, whether out-of-pocket, paid by her insurer, if applicable, or paid by some other entity.

[alexdub]

 

Oh yeah. There is all kinds of language written on the back of a PGA Tour ticket.

 

From the PGA Tour website - https://www.pgatour....icketterms.html

 

"By entering onto the grounds of the Tournament using this ticket, you acknowledge and agree to the following for yourself and on behalf of any accompanying minor (who shall also be deemed to be “you” for purposes of the following): 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 then it goes on to spell out how you can and can't use content recorded at the tournament among many other things.

 

 

Just to clarify -- this liability waiver is provided by and for the PGA Tour, and serves to limit their liability in the event of an injury. It doesn't limit, in any way, the liability or responsibility held by BK with regard to the injury. In tort cases, it's common for an injured party to name multiple defendants in a lawsuit. This waiver, even though not absolute, seeks to help remove the PGA Tour when named in a case.

 

In determining liability for injuries, a (United States) court might consider the following questions:

• Are there any state or federal statutes which assign or waive liability with injuries to spectators at professional sporting events?
  
• Is there but-for causation with the injury? Meaning -- would the injury have happened if not for BK's drive?
  
• Are injuries from golf balls a natural and probable consequence of attending a professional golfing event?
  
• Was there any attempt by the course or European Tour to mitigate injuries?
  
• Was the any attempt made by BK to warn the injured party when the possibility of an injury was discovered?
  
• Would finding for the plaintiff establish an unreasonable standard going forward with assignment of liability?
  

Granted, this happened in France. And France has an a**-backwards legal system. So who knows what crazy tort laws would govern this injury in France.

 

But based on the questions above -- what decision would you make in terms of liability for the injury?

[cvhookem63]

Oh yeah. There is all kinds of language written on the back of a PGA Tour ticket.

 

From the PGA Tour website - https://www.pgatour....icketterms.html

 

"By entering onto the grounds of the Tournament using this ticket, you acknowledge and agree to the following for yourself and on behalf of any accompanying minor (who shall also be deemed to be “you” for purposes of the following): 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 then it goes on to spell out how you can and can't use content recorded at the tournament among many other things.

 

 

Just to clarify -- this liability waiver is provided by and for the PGA Tour, and serves to limit their liability in the event of an injury. It doesn't limit, in any way, the liability or responsibility held by BK with regard to the injury. In tort cases, it's common for an injured party to name multiple defendants in a lawsuit. This waiver, even though not absolute, seeks to help remove the PGA Tour when named in a case.

 

In determining liability for injuries, a (United States) court might consider the following questions:

• Are there any state or federal statutes which assign or waive liability with injuries to spectators at professional sporting events?
  
• Is there but-for causation with the injury? Meaning -- would the injury have happened if not for BK's drive?
  
• Are injuries from golf balls a natural and probable consequence of attending a professional golfing event?
  
• Was there any attempt by the course or European Tour to mitigate injuries?
  
• Was the any attempt made by BK to warn the injured party when the possibility of an injury was discovered?
  
• Would finding for the plaintiff establish an unreasonable standard going forward with assignment of liability?
  

Granted, this happened in France. And France has an a**-backwards legal system. So who knows what crazy tort laws would govern this injury in France.

 

But based on the questions above -- what decision would you make in terms of liability for the injury?

 

After seeing all the old dirt that gets dug up for someone receiving the nomination to be a judge, I'd like to refrain from judging this case.

[ebrasmus21]

 

Can you post any authoritative proof of this ?

 

In my previous post I posted a link to a Law School's opinion/facts about this very thing. Can you provide us with a link to something similar saying the opposite ? i.e. supporting your POV ? TIA

 

I've also read that up until the 1950s, spectators did win these sorts of suits but since then the precedent has been set that spectators take the inherent risks associated with the event being played. It's up to the spectator to be vigilant and/or protect themselves.

 

And apparently there are any number of lawyers who won't even take this kind of case. After all, they (mostly ?) only get paid if they win.

 

Somebody else said they "can and will sue". This is perfectly true BUT winning is quite another thing. Then again, this happened in France and most everything talked about is referencing the USA so who knows what'll happen ?

 

nsxguy:

 

There have been lawsuits in baseball and hockey and I'm sure every other major sport for fans being injured in one way or another. I think you might be missing my point. The tone of numerous posts in this thread is something like: "well they had a disclaimer, nuff said, move on people." My entire point is that it isn't that simple and anyone or anything that has a disclaimer can still be sued.

 

I can provide you proof of current or past lawsuits if you'd like but that only proves that despite disclaimers being in place a lawsuit was still filed and fought in court. Maybe some decisions went in favor of the defendant and maybe a couple went in favor of the plaintiff but how could there possibly be any lawsuits at all when the disclaimer tries to pass 100% of the risk onto the individual?

 

Again, my point is that it's more complicated than simply having a disclaimer on a ticket-stub.

 

I got your point. In fact, I basically agreed with it with the highlighted portion in the quoted post above.

 

But while I agree the law is more complicated than just saying "We ain't responsible" on a ticket (or anywhere else for that matter), my point is that, from what I've read, plaintiffs seldom win these types of cases.

 

Feel free to post links or other authoritative proof that the plaintiffs WIN these suits without something rather out of the ordinary, i.e. other than acts that occur during the normal course of events at these events, and I will be happy to read it.

 

TIA

 

I’m eating a pastor taco right so I’m not exactly researching but if/when I find such a ruling I’ll report back.

 

Years ago I was on a resort course and broke a window of a house with my tee shot. The scorecard of the golf course said I was responsible and I assumed all liabilities. Turns out I was not and my insurance didn’t pay a dime in damages. Not the same thing but that’s the best I can do eating tacos typing on my phone.