DamnYankee
No Neg Policy
- Apr 2, 2009
- 4,516
- 441
- 48
Golfers Not Liable for Failing to Yell "Fore!"
Yelling "Fore!" is etiquette on the golf course following a golfer's errant shot, but the legal system doesn't require it.
In 2002, golfer Anoop Kapoor launched an errant shot out of the rough which ended up hitting his friend, Azad Anand, in the eye, causing Anand to lose sight in that eye. Anand sued, claiming that Kapoor was liable for failure to yell "fore" before his ball struck his friend.
Although the court expressed its sympathy to Anand, it recently ruled 3-1 in favor of Kapoor, saying Anand is not entitled to damages and that being hit by an errant ball is an "inherent risk of the game of golf." The court based its decision, in part, on the fact that Anand's shot was so far off course that a warning would not have been anticipated.
"While we are sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of this accident," the panel observed, "to conclude that the defendant can be held 'liable' in tort for a poorly-executed golf shot because he may have negligently failed to shout 'fore' is inimical to the rationale underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, and at odds with the public policy goal for its adoption -- to encourage 'free and vigorous participation' in sports and recreational activities."
Sources: New York Law Journal and The Wall Street Journal
Read more....
Bizarre legal cases / Funny legal cases / Humorous legal cases:
Yelling "Fore!" is etiquette on the golf course following a golfer's errant shot, but the legal system doesn't require it.
In 2002, golfer Anoop Kapoor launched an errant shot out of the rough which ended up hitting his friend, Azad Anand, in the eye, causing Anand to lose sight in that eye. Anand sued, claiming that Kapoor was liable for failure to yell "fore" before his ball struck his friend.
Although the court expressed its sympathy to Anand, it recently ruled 3-1 in favor of Kapoor, saying Anand is not entitled to damages and that being hit by an errant ball is an "inherent risk of the game of golf." The court based its decision, in part, on the fact that Anand's shot was so far off course that a warning would not have been anticipated.
"While we are sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of this accident," the panel observed, "to conclude that the defendant can be held 'liable' in tort for a poorly-executed golf shot because he may have negligently failed to shout 'fore' is inimical to the rationale underlying the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, and at odds with the public policy goal for its adoption -- to encourage 'free and vigorous participation' in sports and recreational activities."
Sources: New York Law Journal and The Wall Street Journal
Read more....
Bizarre legal cases / Funny legal cases / Humorous legal cases:
