GOLFER’S LOST EYE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 122, 16 February 1935, Page 15

GOLFER’S LOST EYE

i Magistrate Finds Woman Not Negligent NO DAMAGES AWARDED 3 Judgment for defendant, Miss Beatrice Mehaffey was delivered by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court '. yesterday, in the case in which Ernest . Edward Edwards, hardware assistant, I- sought £soo'damages for the loss of an eye which had to be removed after being struck by a ball driven by Miss i Mehaffey. The accident, occurred on the Manor Park golf course on the , morning of October 7. In the course of his judgment the Magistrate cited the dictum of Mr. Justice Swift in Cleghorn v, Oldham: “A person who goes on to a golf course, just as. a person who crosses a street, takes certain risks inherent to , the place where he is. But in playinggames, as in other transactions of life, ' a player must abstain from doing what ; a reasonable person would not do, and if he does something which a reason- ’ able person in the circumstances would ’ not have done and if injury results 1 therefrom, he is liable in an action for negligence. If negligence cannot be ’ brought home to anyone, an injured person cannotarecover.” ■ Exercise of Care. i "The question whether, in the circumstances of this case, defendant exercised reasonable care is, I think, Substantially a question of fact,” Mr. Page continued. “The first point to be considered is whether defendant was negligent in not having seen plaintiff before she played her shot. It is to be noted that plaintiff, though he had at least an equal and perhaps a better opportunity of doing so (for he was walking towards her, he was on her fairway, and he had seen her opponent), had not seen her. The ground constituting these three fairways is, in its general contour, approximately flat. but through it run shalloyy depressions and low terraces. Defendant, as she Valked towards her ball, would be i’acIng, not immediately in the direction of plaintiff, but with her left shoulder towards him. “Defendant reached her time before plaintiff reached his, for she "waited there while her partner played her second shot and also waited momentarily to see that the four-ball in front of her was waiting for her to and het- method of taking up her stance and playing her shot appears to be father unhurried and deliberate. During these preliminaries plaintiff | would be some distance further from her than he was at the time that he was struck, and at times he would be partly obscured by the folds in the hind. A view of the locality disclosed .that even as lie. stood at his ball only, the upper part of his body would be visible to anyone standing where the . defendant was, the" lower part from just below the hips downwards being .obscured by rising ground.- Although events proved that he was in a danger zone he was substantially bit-tfie line on .which defendant desired,to play... Her attention would be directed to the -four men who were on. the. nanle fairwaj’ as. slie and rather nearer to her than plaintiff Whs. "Did Her Best to Save Him.” ■ In my view the evidence. -establish.;,any lack of reasonable/aire on her part in having fallhd tbiriprice him prior to making her shot. Having made the shot and having then caught :sight of him she did her best to save him from Injury. ? “This dintliug appears to dispose of the. case. . J think,. however, that I slibuld set but my view as to the liability of defendant, on the basis of a finding that she should have seen plaintiff prior to playing. "It is a question of degree, dependent on the skill’and the power of the player and the direction, in relation to the line of play, and the distance-at which anyone else may be, whether a duty is cast on the player to warn such ..pfersou before the player makes the : shot. The shot that caused this injury, though it was well off the line that defendant intended to take, was slightly less far off the line than her previous sliced shot had been. “Of the four golfers that express an opinion as.to the reasonableness of . defendant’s having -played without giving a prior warning, one witness for plaintiff, considers- that it - was grossneglect . . . not to ascertain before playing tilth-a powerful chib that no one was within range. The other witness for--plaintiff says: -From iny observations I came to the conclusion that I wouldn’t, blame anyone for this accident.’ Both these witnesses saw the accident take, place. The two witnesses called for defendant on this point (a professional and an amateur of experience) consider that even if defendant had, seen plaintiff she would nevertheless be justified .in playing without giving a prior warning. No Negligence Established. “I have given careful consideration to the whole of the evidence and have . examined the situation on the ground, and the conclusion that I arrive at is that plaintiff has not established that, even on the basis that defendant had or should have seen him before playing her shot, she was guilty of negligence in failing to warn him before she played. “In view of these findings it is necessary to consider the further question raised by defendant, namely, whether plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence conducing to the, occurrence. “For the above reasons judgment, in my view, must go for defendant with costs.” Security for appeal was fixed at the amount of the costs, phis £lO/10/-. Mr. J. B. Callan, K.C., and Mr. E. T. E. Hogg appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. F.' O’Leary for defendant.