Ryder Cup Golf Ball Strike
TapaTalk
TapaTalk
Ryder Cup Golf Ball Strike
Tasteless jokes after an incident like this.....real classy.....not
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2018
- Messages
- 33,205
- Reaction score
- 47,438
- Location
- Oxford, Mississippi
- Handicap
- 10.4
My law practice includes tort cases like this from both sides. It is a very unfortunate accident. If it had happened here, her chances of even getting to trial are virtually non-existent. Most likely, the case would be resolved on a motion to dismiss. If not then, I can't imagine that she survives the motion for summary judgment that would follow. Absent a beneficent desire to help her from a tournament organizer and/or venue, or even the player, I don't think she has much chance of a settlement. Even then, I wouldn't expect it to be more than her medical bills and the settlement agreement would carry a heavy, heavy price for breach of the confidentiality provision that would undoubtedly be included. But, trying to analyze this situation by American tort principles is useless, other than for S&Gs on a message board.
Because I'm waiting on the IT repair man, I've read a few articles on tort law in France. The general theme I gathered is that French tort law is not based upon the traditional breach of a duty owed analysis that we have. France seems to follow an approach that imposes liability on either the one who profits from a thing, because he/she/it who takes its benefit should bear its potential burden, or the one who creates a risk, because he/she/it should bear its potentially harmful consequences. I haven't seen assumption of risk recognized as a defense. France appears generally to recognize contributory negligence but I can't see anyone finding that the lady did anything wrong. I don't know what release might be on the back of the ticket or what warnings were posted on the course or how those contractual terms have been have been interpreted or applied within a tort case in French courts. France does recognize a force majeure defense, i.e., an essentially unforeseen and unavoidable incident. If the incident could be foreseen, then liability may attach. Whatever happens, my barely French-educated guess is that any arguable exposure to liability lies with the course or tournament organizer, not with Koepka for an unintentional and errant shot that is inherent in the game. But that is based upon my guess that control of the premises will be the issue in determining the proper defendants. The end result might be the same as you would get here but route to the end could be considerably different. Or there is some crazy provision in French law that could keep Koepka in the case, even if ultimately he is absolved of any liability.
Probably more than you wanted to know.
Because I'm waiting on the IT repair man, I've read a few articles on tort law in France. The general theme I gathered is that French tort law is not based upon the traditional breach of a duty owed analysis that we have. France seems to follow an approach that imposes liability on either the one who profits from a thing, because he/she/it who takes its benefit should bear its potential burden, or the one who creates a risk, because he/she/it should bear its potentially harmful consequences. I haven't seen assumption of risk recognized as a defense. France appears generally to recognize contributory negligence but I can't see anyone finding that the lady did anything wrong. I don't know what release might be on the back of the ticket or what warnings were posted on the course or how those contractual terms have been have been interpreted or applied within a tort case in French courts. France does recognize a force majeure defense, i.e., an essentially unforeseen and unavoidable incident. If the incident could be foreseen, then liability may attach. Whatever happens, my barely French-educated guess is that any arguable exposure to liability lies with the course or tournament organizer, not with Koepka for an unintentional and errant shot that is inherent in the game. But that is based upon my guess that control of the premises will be the issue in determining the proper defendants. The end result might be the same as you would get here but route to the end could be considerably different. Or there is some crazy provision in French law that could keep Koepka in the case, even if ultimately he is absolved of any liability.
Probably more than you wanted to know.
I haven't watched it and assuredly won't. I don't want to see it.
I'll instead make an observation. In most pro events when 'fore! is "yelled" it's a very weak bark of 'fore right¡". No one 200 yards ahead will have any clue.
When I launch one that might be heading towards someone there is no half assed "fore¡". It's "FORE FORE FORE FORE FORE!!!!!!" I don't know if it'll ever do any good but there will be no one ever knocked in the head that doesn't have at least my best attempt at a warning. Some of the very weak "fore right¡" that I hear from the pros isn't acceptable. They're good enough to know when they launch one where people might be. I've yelled at the top of my lungs before when I've had no idea where it's going because I lost the flight of it. This for balls that have not ended anywhere close to someone.
I doubt it would help in this situation, but if you hit one anywhere near someone you yell "FORE!!!!!" at the top of your lungs until all is clear. The rare times I hear that on a course I try to cover my noggin.
Side note: I've only been hit by a ball once on the course. There was no warning. I wasn't physically injured. It did break my new iPhone that it hit that was in my pocket so it hurt to the tune of $700.00. I wasn't upset after talking to the fella that hit me. He was hitting into a low sun and had lost it. By the time he saw where I was there was no time for a warning. I'd have rather taken a thigh bruise but life is life.
On the footage I saw, there were a lot of shouts (most quite urgent, to be fair) of Fore! coming across the mics. The main issue here is that the shouts, if Koepka's hitting, are originating best part 300 yards away from the landing point.
That distance immediately introduces a reaction delay, which doesn't help.
That distance immediately introduces a reaction delay, which doesn't help.