GOLFERS AT LAW

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 16 February 1935, Page 11

GOLFERS AT LAW

LOSS OF AN EYE ALLEGATION'S OF NEGLIGENCE NOT thPHEtti 4 of aegiigence made in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court against Ilea trine Meliaifey by a fellow-member of the Manor Park Golf Club, Ernest Edward Edwards, as the result of a golfing accident in which the latter lost his left eye, were not upheld by Mr E. Page, S.M. (reports the “Post”), Edwards, who is a hardware assistant, claimed £SOO damages from Miss Mehaffey. but the Magistrate, in a reserved decision, found in favour of defendant, With costs. On the application of counsel lor tlie plaintiff security for appeal was fixed at the amount of the costs, plus ten guineas. On tlie morning of Sunday, 7th October last, the plaintiff, while playing golf on the Manor Park course, was struck cm the eye by a. bail played by the defendant, and the eye was injured so severely that a few days later it bad to be removed by surgical operittiori, said Mr Page. The normal jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court was limited to claims not exceeding £3OO, but the parties had agreed that the Court should have jurisdiction to hear the action. Mr Page dealt lit length with the events leading up to the accident, and said that the Court and the parties had visited the golf course and fixed various positions.

A QUESTION OF VIEW

"The first point to be considered is whether the defendant was negligent in not having seen the plaintiff before she played her shot,” said the Magistrate. “It is to be noted that the plaintiff, though lie had at least an equal ajid perhaps a better opportunity of doing so (for lie was walking towards her, he was on her fairway, and lie had seen her opponent), had not seen her. “Tlie ground constituting these three fairways is, iii its general contour, approximately flat, but through it run shallow depressions aiid low terraces. The defendant, as she walked towards her ball, would be facing, not immediately in the direction of tlie plaintiff, but with her left shoulder towards him. “The defendant .reached her ball some time before the 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 play, and her method of taking up her stance and playing her shot appears to be rather unhurried and deliberate. During these preliminaries the plaintiff would be some distance further from her than lie was at the time that lie was struck, and at times he would be partly obscured by the folds in the land. A view of-- the locality disclosed that even as he stood at his ball only tlie upper part of his body would be visible to anyone standing where tlie defendant was, the lower part from just below the hips downwards being obscured by rising ground. Though events proved that ie was in a . danger zone he was substantially off the line on which defendant desired to play. Her attention would bo directed to the four men who were on the same fairway as she was and rather nearer to her thaii the plaintiff was.

NO LACK OF CARE

“lit my view the evidence does not establish any lack of reasonable care on her part in having failed to notice liim 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 finding appears to dispose of tlie case. I think, however, that, 1 should set out Iny view as to the liability of the defendant, on the basis of a finding that the should have m?cn the plaintiff prior to playilig. “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 person before the player makes the shot. Tlie shot that caused this injury, though it was well off the line that the 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 having played without giving a prior warning, one witness,for plaintiff considers that it was ,‘gross neglect . . . not to ascertain. before playing with a powerful club that no one was within range.’ The other witness for plaintiff says, .‘From my observations I came to the conclusion that 1 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 tin amateur of experience) consider that even if defendant had seen plaintiff she would nevertheless be justified in , playing without giving a prior warning.

MAGISTRATE’S CONCLUSION

“I have given careful consideration to the wliole of the evidence and have examined the situation on the ground, and the conclusion that I arrive at is that the plaintiff has not established that even on the basis that tlie 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 unnecessary to consider tlie further question raised by defendant, namely, whether the plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence conducing to the occurrence. “For the above reasohs judgment in my view, must go for defendant, with costs.” Mr B. Callan, K.G., with him Mr E. T. E. Hogg, appeared for the plaintiff ,and Mr H. F. O’Leary for the defendant.