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

[bladehunter]

 

no such thing as coffee thats "too hot'.... If you spill coffee on yourself ..you get what you get.

 

Lol the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns that required 8 days in the hospital and extensive skin graft surgery. So, yes, that is "too hot" and has nothing to do with "a mentality", it's gross negligence on the part of McDonalds.

 

The issue with that is that nobody takes into account different people and different tolerances of skin. What will burn a baby will not burn me. What will burn some soft skin folks will not burn me. Same reason a lot of folks (like me ) love coffee as hot as I can get it. I can drink it that way and anything else seems cold. This lawsuit is the reason you can’t buy a cup of “hot” coffee anymore.

 

All beside the point. She spilled it on herself. If she had bought a knife and stabbed herself. Could she sue because it was “ too sharp “. Both purchases have the exact same expectation of danger. And both require operator error to enact that danger.

[Z1ggy16]

An Omen, maybe.

 

I try to be an aware fan at events. If I chose to stand along the fairway, I educate myself on about where there ball would be landing, and at least 30 yards further down toward the green if possible. When I was at the US Open this year, I was standing right in a possible landing zone (somebody laid up a bit) next to these few women... Jim Fuyrk hit his tee ball about 15 feet from one of them, and they had no clue a ball was heading their way. I was watching the guys by the box wave the sticks and knew it was at least heading somewhat in our direction. I just kind of put my hands up around my head just in case and turned so if I got hit, maybe it would catch my arm/hand first.

 

The ladies screamed and acted all shook and surprised. Uh hello... you're at an event with guys slinging balls around ?? It's like sitting along the first base line at an MLB game and just staring off into space.

[Simp]

If he signed a glove and gave her a crisp Benjamin it would've made it better.

[Z1ggy16]

OH and serious question.... If a spectator gets seriously injured by a ball, can they sue the player or the venue? I've never signed any kind of medical release forms going into a golf event (or any sport event). I'm sure people have been smoked by hockey pucks and baseballs in the past and gotten hurt badly and tried to sue. How'd that turn out?

[buckeye440]

Its funny to me that something terrible happens and people automatically say “someone owes me money”

 

Who would pay if a meteorite dropped from the sky on your foot and broke it?

 

Somebody owes me!

 

NASA

 

Please! We live on a flat earth with a dome around it. Ain't no meteorites gonna strike nobody. Typical NASA ball earth propaganda.

[smeech8000]

the easy answer here is the ryder cup makes money hand over fist. they should pay for reasonable medical care here on such a serious injury, regardless of liability, just in the spirit of fan experience. pga doesnt wanna give up $ to players other than some charity money, at least do this.

I agree completely but think she is entitled to more than just reasonable medical care. If she has lost sight in that eye she should receive a hefty damages payout too. I hope I'm never in that position, but the psychological damage of having only one functioning eye would be immense. This is a lifelong injury that will affect her in all kinds of ways. There areany posters quick to take the side of organizers and shift responsibility to the spectator, but trying walking in her shoes before getting on your high horse and writing this off as an unfortunate accident.

If it were your wife, daughter, sister, friend would you be so quick to say it was her fault? Or worry about precedents thatay hurt the organizers? That's what insurance is for.

 

I'm assuming the bolded portion above refers to punitive damages, since compensatory damages would basically be the medical costs and her legal fees. Punitive damages are awarded in a very small percentage of personal injury cases. Can you explain what the defendant did in this case that is especially reprehensible or why their behavior would qualify as reckless (with regard to spectator safety) which would warrant such damages? For the record, I don't disagree on the defendant's liability for compensatory damages. Not punitive though, regardless of the severity of the injury and any hypothetical relation to me personally, despite whether or not the payout/claim would be honored by the insurer. Insurance companies always make money, so who do you think is footing the bill for that claim?

 

I think people are very quick to make knee-jerk decision about this stuff when it's not their own money but they often fail to see the unintended consequences of such an action. Large punitive damages in this case would likely cause other event organizers to reconsider where they allow galleries to stand, and possibly how many people to admit to an event. I personally feel that golf is, hands down, the absolute best sport for fans to attend because of the freedom they are afforded - you can have a front row seat to watch Tiger Woods (or whoever your favorite player is) for the price of a general admission ticket! No other sport can offer that kind of value, and unfortunately there are risks that go along with that benefit. Other sports that have high-speed projectiles (namely baseball and hockey) make an effort to protect their fans through plexiglass barriers and protective netting, the extent of which has largely been determined by previous lawsuits. Do you want golf to go the same direction? It's a very real possibility that would get traction through the very suit at issue here.

[nsxguy]

no such thing as coffee thats "too hot'.... If you spill coffee on yourself ..you get what you get.

 

Lol the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns that required 8 days in the hospital and extensive skin graft surgery. So, yes, that is "too hot" and has nothing to do with "a mentality", it's gross negligence on the part of McDonalds.

 

Yet, even at this time, coffee outlets serve coffee just as hot or hotter,,,,,,,, just like they did then.

 

Moral of the story - don't try to open a hot cup of coffee in the car. ;)

[QuigleyDU]

Was the spectator playing candy crush on her phone when it happened??

[cvhookem63]

OH and serious question.... If a spectator gets seriously injured by a ball, can they sue the player or the venue? I've never signed any kind of medical release forms going into a golf event (or any sport event). I'm sure people have been smoked by hockey pucks and baseballs in the past and gotten hurt badly and tried to sue. How'd that turn out?

 

There has been a lot of this discussed in the other thread, but consensus is that the back of tickets (to PGA Tour events / other major US sporting events) have detailed disclaimer language on them, but that doesn't clear the entities of all legal responsibility. It does not prevent them from being sued.

 

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.

[Z1ggy16]

OH and serious question.... If a spectator gets seriously injured by a ball, can they sue the player or the venue? I've never signed any kind of medical release forms going into a golf event (or any sport event). I'm sure people have been smoked by hockey pucks and baseballs in the past and gotten hurt badly and tried to sue. How'd that turn out?

 

There has been a lot of this discussed in the other thread, but consensus is that the back of tickets (to PGA Tour events / other major US sporting events) have detailed disclaimer language on them, but that doesn't clear the entities of all legal responsibility. It does not prevent them from being sued.

 

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.

I see, thanks. I assume most sport tickets have this on there then, especially baseball.

 

Still, a civil suit can probably be made regardless of whatever any legal jargon on the back of a ticket says. I would assume that the success rate of such suits are very low though.

[Prntscrn]

They should do their best to clear general landing areas , and not allow fans to form those narrow tunnels when pros are hitting escape shots

 

Other than that, not much you can do except pay a settlement every 5-7 years

 

Yeah being hit like that could really be the end for someone. There is one thing to get hit when the ball has lost most of it's speed and energy(even though it could as we seen still do some serious damage), but in the beginning of the ball flight would be bad, really bad..

[nsxguy]

 

no such thing as coffee thats "too hot'.... If you spill coffee on yourself ..you get what you get . Its a mentality that i personally dont understand .. Its along the lines of people who can never go to a restaurant without sending their food back or running the waiter/waitress around for 20 trips back and forth for "more" everything... This is the same person who thinks sue everytime they stub their toe. People are unwilling to accept their responsibility in things , and in the instance of sending food back i gave, they are unwilling to just accept that sometimes you just have a bit of bad luck ... So what , my potatoes arent piping hot.. eat them and shut up ..Thats what i do, everytime.. Ive never sent a meal back in my life.

 

I guess my opinion is due to my 17 years in business. The business has been sued a couple times. Once because a customer , after completion of a project , complained that he saw materials priced on our invoice higher than some he found elsewhere ... 3 months later. Takes us to small claims court for $3k.... If not for outrage of our attorney the judge was inclined to give him half to "shut him up"... Our attorney almost did a backflip when the judge tells us this in private before he ruled..eventually it was thrown out. But still cost me $1500 plus in fees and day off work.

 

While I might disagree with you about food that wasn't prepared to my liking, it is rare that I send food back because of it.

 

We have become SUCH a litigious society. Anything bad happens "It's HIS fault" and he has to pay. Sad.

 

I've said for a long time now that if a judge dismisses a case as "frivolous" the person bringing the case to court pays ALL court costs.

 

Further, if the case goes to trial (or just to a judge/arbitrator/whatever) and the case is decided in favor of the defendant the complainant pays a percentage of the defendant's costs, anywhere from 0-100%, depending on what the court decides.

 

This would at least cause the lawyers and complainants to think twice before bringing a lawsuit. :dntknw:

[smeech8000]

All beside the point. She spilled it on herself. If she had bought a knife and stabbed herself. Could she sue because it was " too sharp ". Both purchases have the exact same expectation of danger. And both require operator error to enact that danger.

 

I buy a knife with the expectation of it being sharp enough to cut, which is its primary purpose. I buy a cup of coffee with the expectation of it being hot enough to enjoy consuming it, which is its primary purpose.

 

If I want to buy something whose primary purpose is to burn something, I do not buy coffee to achieve that purpose.

[Hawkeye77]

the easy answer here is the ryder cup makes money hand over fist. they should pay for reasonable medical care here on such a serious injury, regardless of liability, just in the spirit of fan experience. pga doesnt wanna give up $ to players other than some charity money, at least do this.

I agree completely but think she is entitled to more than just reasonable medical care. If she has lost sight in that eye she should receive a hefty damages payout too. I hope I'm never in that position, but the psychological damage of having only one functioning eye would be immense. This is a lifelong injury that will affect her in all kinds of ways. There areany posters quick to take the side of organizers and shift responsibility to the spectator, but trying walking in her shoes before getting on your high horse and writing this off as an unfortunate accident.

If it were your wife, daughter, sister, friend would you be so quick to say it was her fault? Or worry about precedents thatay hurt the organizers? That's what insurance is for.

 

I'm assuming the bolded portion above refers to punitive damages, since compensatory damages would basically be the medical costs and her legal fees. Punitive damages are awarded in a very small percentage of personal injury cases. Can you explain what the defendant did in this case that is especially reprehensible or why their behavior would qualify as reckless (with regard to spectator safety) which would warrant such damages? For the record, I don't disagree on the defendant's liability for compensatory damages. Not punitive though, regardless of the severity of the injury and any hypothetical relation to me personally, despite whether or not the payout/claim would be honored by the insurer. Insurance companies always make money, so who do you think is footing the bill for that claim?

 

I think people are very quick to make knee-jerk decision about this stuff when it's not their own money but they often fail to see the unintended consequences of such an action. Large punitive damages in this case would likely cause other event organizers to reconsider where they allow galleries to stand, and possibly how many people to admit to an event. I personally feel that golf is, hands down, the absolute best sport for fans to attend because of the freedom they are afforded - you can have a front row seat to watch Tiger Woods (or whoever your favorite player is) for the price of a general admission ticket! No other sport can offer that kind of value, and unfortunately there are risks that go along with that benefit. Other sports that have high-speed projectiles (namely baseball and hockey) make an effort to protect their fans through plexiglass barriers and protective netting, the extent of which has largely been determined by previous lawsuits. Do you want golf to go the same direction? It's a very real possibility that would get traction through the very suit at issue here.

 

Compensatory damages are hardly limited to medical costs and legal fees may or may not be an element of damage and may or may not be compensable and "generally" not something you recover in an ordinary action based on personal injury absent an agreement that would allow them or a statute that allows them for a specific kind of action.

 

And none of this or the above means anything relevant to the discussion of the victim in France without knowing quite a lot about French law.

 

Way too much legal "knowledge" flying around.

[nsxguy]

Read that coffee case again. It wasnt that simple. Its was due to neglegance on mcdonalds part.

 

Could you expand on that ?

 

I read the Wikipedia version. I know Wiki isn't the be-all end-all and I only scanned through it anyway but from what I read the case was brought and decided because the coffee was too hot. Just as MtlJeff said. Not because of McDonald's negligence.

 

She was in the passenger seat of the car, held the closed coffee cup in between her legs and tried to open it. Where's the negligence ?

 

And to this day McDonald's and pretty much every other coffee outlet stills serves the coffee as hot or even hotter.

[EdEd]

All beside the point. She spilled it on herself. If she had bought a knife and stabbed herself. Could she sue because it was " too sharp ". Both purchases have the exact same expectation of danger. And both require operator error to enact that danger.

 

I buy a knife with the expectation of it being sharp enough to cut, which is its primary purpose. I buy a cup of coffee with the expectation of it being hot enough to enjoy consuming it, which is its primary purpose.

 

If I want to buy something whose primary purpose is to burn something, I do not buy coffee to achieve that purpose.

 

Actually different knives and different uses. If I buy a butter knife (the primary purpose is to cut butter, not meat, not metal, not cardboard, etc) and I stab myself, based on your logic, I should be able to sue right?

[Potatohead]

 

The ladies screamed and acted all shook and surprised. Uh hello... you're at an event with guys slinging balls around ??

 

Well, they're probably used to that. Just in a different setting.

[JDFish]

Read that coffee case again. It wasnt that simple. Its was due to neglegance on mcdonalds part.

 

Could you expand on that ?

 

I read the Wikipedia version. I know Wiki isn't the be-all end-all and I only scanned through it anyway but from what I read the case was brought and decided because the coffee was too hot. Just as MtlJeff said. Not because of McDonald's negligence.

 

She was in the passenger seat of the car, held the closed coffee cup in between her legs and tried to open it. Where's the negligence ?

 

And to this day McDonald's and pretty much every other coffee outlet stills serves the coffee as hot or even hotter.

 

The jury verdict was greatly reduced in the McDonald's case by the court of appeals - and it was not widely reported because that headline wouldn't sell papers. Since then you have seen disclaimers on the coffee cups.

[bladehunter]

All beside the point. She spilled it on herself. If she had bought a knife and stabbed herself. Could she sue because it was " too sharp ". Both purchases have the exact same expectation of danger. And both require operator error to enact that danger.

 

I buy a knife with the expectation of it being sharp enough to cut, which is its primary purpose. I buy a cup of coffee with the expectation of it being hot enough to enjoy consuming it, which is its primary purpose.

 

If I want to buy something whose primary purpose is to burn something, I do not buy coffee to achieve that purpose.

 

agree..But in the case of Coffee "hot enough to enjoy "lets say 1/2 the cup before its cold requires its start temp to be quite hot.... Otherwise you get 2 sips if warm coffee and a whole cup left of cold coffee..

 

"hot" coffee will burn you ..severely , and a sharp knife can kill you .. same same

[gatorpedsMD]

This picture of Brooks Koepka for a Golf Digest shoot (from August) did not age well...

 

 

Oh man lol

[smeech8000]

All beside the point. She spilled it on herself. If she had bought a knife and stabbed herself. Could she sue because it was " too sharp ". Both purchases have the exact same expectation of danger. And both require operator error to enact that danger.

 

I buy a knife with the expectation of it being sharp enough to cut, which is its primary purpose. I buy a cup of coffee with the expectation of it being hot enough to enjoy consuming it, which is its primary purpose.

 

If I want to buy something whose primary purpose is to burn something, I do not buy coffee to achieve that purpose.

 

Actually different knives and different uses. If I buy a butter knife (the primary purpose is to cut butter, not meat, not metal, not cardboard, etc) and I stab myself, based on your logic, I should be able to sue right?

 

*sigh*

 

Yep, you're absolutely right. You got me. :swoon:

 

I highly doubt that bladehunter was referring to a butter knife in his analogy. Had he specified that then my response (and logic behind it) would have been much different, if even posted at all.

[bladehunter]

All beside the point. She spilled it on herself. If she had bought a knife and stabbed herself. Could she sue because it was " too sharp ". Both purchases have the exact same expectation of danger. And both require operator error to enact that danger.

 

I buy a knife with the expectation of it being sharp enough to cut, which is its primary purpose. I buy a cup of coffee with the expectation of it being hot enough to enjoy consuming it, which is its primary purpose.

 

If I want to buy something whose primary purpose is to burn something, I do not buy coffee to achieve that purpose.

 

Actually different knives and different uses. If I buy a butter knife (the primary purpose is to cut butter, not meat, not metal, not cardboard, etc) and I stab myself, based on your logic, I should be able to sue right?

 

*sigh*

 

Yep, you're absolutely right. You got me. :swoon:

 

I highly doubt that bladehunter was referring to a butter knife in his analogy. Had he specified that then my response (and logic behind it) would have been much different, if even posted at all.

 

no harm meant ... I didnt initially mean a butter knife ....But he brings up a good point with one... bottom line is i hate this topic and i like to argue..Bad combo..lol

[vanillafunk616]

Read that coffee case again. It wasnt that simple. Its was due to neglegance on mcdonalds part.

 

Could you expand on that ?

 

I read the Wikipedia version. I know Wiki isn't the be-all end-all and I only scanned through it anyway but from what I read the case was brought and decided because the coffee was too hot. Just as MtlJeff said. Not because of McDonald's negligence.

 

She was in the passenger seat of the car, held the closed coffee cup in between her legs and tried to open it. Where's the negligence ?

 

And to this day McDonald's and pretty much every other coffee outlet stills serves the coffee as hot or even hotter.

 

It was because the coffee was served at a really crazy temperature (190 degrees) and multiple customers had been injured and McDonald's knew the coffee was causing injury and refused to change their protocol.

[Hawkeye77]

Read that coffee case again. It wasnt that simple. Its was due to neglegance on mcdonalds part.

 

Could you expand on that ?

 

I read the Wikipedia version. I know Wiki isn't the be-all end-all and I only scanned through it anyway but from what I read the case was brought and decided because the coffee was too hot. Just as MtlJeff said. Not because of McDonald's negligence.

 

She was in the passenger seat of the car, held the closed coffee cup in between her legs and tried to open it. Where's the negligence ?

 

And to this day McDonald's and pretty much every other coffee outlet stills serves the coffee as hot or even hotter.

 

He's kind of right and kind of wrong. Various folks have written articles directed at the underlying facts/claims (many are pro-tort lawyer based) so quite a bit to read about the actual testimony and evidence, if anyone wanted to.

 

Her theories were strict liability and breach of implied warranty/products liability type claims, so a simple negligence claim and ordinary instruction about negligence wasn't really part of the case that went to the jury. I believe she prevailed on what I will loosely call the products liability claims which would have risk/warnings/defective product (for whatever argued reason) and those kinds of things tied up in the case. And although different legal claims than straight negligence they still all get back directly or indirectly to the temperature of the product, necessity of warning and in what form, intended and actual use by the consumer and all sorts of related foreseeability issues. So you could say it wasn't "negligence" but really a lot of the same arguments come into play in the same and also in different ways.

 

Yes, her own negligence her use of the product, etc. were all raised as part of the myriad of defenses.

 

Not sure why this has gone off into the hysteria (mostly political) raised by that case, and really no point in arguing about what a particular jury in a particular context does with a set of facts and litigants. The case was settled and appeal not taken to conclusion so it really doesn't have a lot of precedential value, but lots of "curb appeal" even 24 years later, lol, and a hot button case for those wanting to take after "greedy" lawyers/the "man", whatever.

[Hawkeye77]

Read that coffee case again. It wasnt that simple. Its was due to neglegance on mcdonalds part.

 

Could you expand on that ?

 

I read the Wikipedia version. I know Wiki isn't the be-all end-all and I only scanned through it anyway but from what I read the case was brought and decided because the coffee was too hot. Just as MtlJeff said. Not because of McDonald's negligence.

 

She was in the passenger seat of the car, held the closed coffee cup in between her legs and tried to open it. Where's the negligence ?

 

And to this day McDonald's and pretty much every other coffee outlet stills serves the coffee as hot or even hotter.

 

The jury verdict was greatly reduced in the McDonald's case by the court of appeals - and it was not widely reported because that headline wouldn't sell papers. Since then you have seen disclaimers on the coffee cups.

 

Really??????? Where is that appellate court decision to be found?

 

Edit: the trial court reduced part of the jury's verdict, fyi. Sorry, you were close and maybe getting more "wiki" info, but as indicated in a previous post, the court of appeals never issued a ruling, the case was settled. Just a little cranky about facts getting ignored. Ryder Cup hangover.

[smeech8000]

All beside the point. She spilled it on herself. If she had bought a knife and stabbed herself. Could she sue because it was " too sharp ". Both purchases have the exact same expectation of danger. And both require operator error to enact that danger.

 

I buy a knife with the expectation of it being sharp enough to cut, which is its primary purpose. I buy a cup of coffee with the expectation of it being hot enough to enjoy consuming it, which is its primary purpose.

 

If I want to buy something whose primary purpose is to burn something, I do not buy coffee to achieve that purpose.

 

agree..But in the case of Coffee "hot enough to enjoy "lets say 1/2 the cup before its cold requires its start temp to be quite hot.... Otherwise you get 2 sips if warm coffee and a whole cup left of cold coffee..

 

"hot" coffee will burn you ..severely , and a sharp knife can kill you .. same same

 

I completely understand this, however there are other ways to extend the life/temperature of the coffee than simply increasing the holding temperature prior to serving (which, according to legal precedence, makes the coffee unnecessarily dangerous beyond its intended purpose).

 

For example, the cup can be better insulated or you can get yourself a fancy Yeti. Or drink faster. :derisive:

[avrag]

 

I've said for a long time now that if a judge dismisses a case as "frivolous" the person bringing the case to court pays ALL court costs.

 

Further, if the case goes to trial (or just to a judge/arbitrator/whatever) and the case is decided in favor of the defendant the complainant pays a percentage of the defendant's costs, anywhere from 0-100%, depending on what the court decides.

 

This would at least cause the lawyers and complainants to think twice before bringing a lawsuit. :dntknw:

 

Tough one to swallow, perhaps, but this is exactly the way it works in our system of civil litigation, and as far as I know in most continental European countries.

[Finbarr Saunders]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/45734449

[doublehans]

It’s just odd to me the Ryder Cup hasn’t already volunteered to pay medical expenses (assuming these stories are true). This is “supposed” to be a goodwill competition after all. With so much revenue anyway, what’s more in the spirit of goodwill than covering something like this that happened at the event.

 

The Ryder Cup is the PGA's cash cow, but it depends on the US players. If I'm Brooks I'd seriously question being part of that if the PGA doesn't make sure the Ryder Cup does the right thing here. (edited to clarify its about Brooks relationship to PGA)

 

It’s not always about whether you are legally obligated to do sthg. If she wants to sue for more, fine, I get defending it, but medical costs, let’s invoke the unofficial motto of the RC —— come on!

[MattyO1984]

Lots of legal experts on here, anyone actually with any knowledge of French law?