From the AP:
FARMINGDALE, N.J. — Landscapers in New Jersey better check for golf balls before mowing.

That's because a Monmouth County man who got glass in his eye when a golf ball struck his window has received a $725,000 settlement.

Defendants in the lawsuit made no admission of liability under terms of the settlement.

Thomas Guhl was driving in Farmingdale when a golf ball hit his windshield in 2006.

In his lawsuit, Guhl alleged the ball had landed on a home's lawn from nearby Eagle Oaks Golf and Country Club and was launched by a mower.

Guhl alleged the golf club failed to place netting along Asbury Avenue to prevent balls from leaving the course. He also said Canfield Lawn and Landscaping should have checked the lawn before mowing.

Guhl's vision suffered because his cornea was cut.

-----------------------

So, how long before the landscaping company sues the golf course?!?!?

I'm amazed they didn't bring CSI out there to try and dust for the golfer's fingerprints on the ball. I'm sure they'd like to sure him as well.

A friend of mine was just hit in the eye by a golf ball struck on an adjacent fairway (holes running opposite directions) about two weeks ago. He had what the doctors called a 'total blowout' of the eye socket and needed reconstructive surgery to his skull, as well as stitches along his eyebrow where the ball split it open. His eye was filled with blood and I have my fingers crossed that he will regain full vision in that eye, because he needs to have good vision for our job (Coast Guard helicopter crew).

And there's our fine legal system at work........where freak accidents always have an insured defendant to go after.

Oh well, it could have been worse, it could have been my money!

That insurance company won't lose any money. They have it all figured out, legal system or not.

Wow, what are the odds of that happening? Perhaps that's a good reason to wear protective sunglasses when you play.

When I first talked to him that is one of the things we talked about - how ridiculous the odds are against that ever happening. If you imagine how many cubic feet of air are available for a golf ball to go through after a stroke, and the odds of someone's head happening to be in one of those cubic feet - it's astronomical. He is upset of course, but he said he almost has to laugh it off because the odds of it actually happening were so amazing.

I think most lifetime golfers will never be hit with a ball, much less in the one place on the body that's really susceptible to damage!

The crazy thing is that since he got hit, every time I am on the course I feel like there are 4-5 close calls, where a ball hits the turf within a few feet of me. Maybe it's just that I'm more freaked out by close calls now that I take more notice.

Crazy but not a surprise that this could happen.

Wow... What are the odds on that happening?

An ambulance-chasing lawyer saying 'you've got a case; let's sue..' I mean.

I'm surprised Perry Mason didn't go after Titleist for making the ball and the owner of the house for having the idiocy to have a lawn. With danger merchants like them about it's no wonder these accidents happen. And they get to claim a few grand in legal fees.

So, you guys who are complaining about the legal system wouldn't sue if you lost an eye through no fault of your own? You think he should just suck it up because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or do you think it makes more sense to assign liability to the club, where: (a) the accident would not have happened but for the club; (b) the club can spread the risk to all of its members; © the club has paid premiums to insure itself from liability for injuries caused by golf balls that stray from the property, as it recognizes that such accidents do happen to passersby who are not at fault; and, (d) the insurance company has accepted the risk and priced its policies to account for a certain number of claims?

No, I'm afraid in the instance there was a legitimate case.

I think our society is being asphyxiated under the weight of it's own, overly litigious self, but there are justified lawsuits from time to time.

At a course I used to play in western New York in the mid 1990's, a member lost his eye after being hit by a golfball. The twist was he was hit by his own shot, thanks to a ricochet off of a relative small tree trunk, maybe 6 inches in diameter 10 or 15 yards ahead of him. It was the 2nd shot on a par 5.

In this case, it strikes me that the club are not to blame per se. Neither is the owner of the house or anyone else. It sounds like a freak accident that was, effectively, an act of God.

The simple fact is, it's not the chap who was injured's fault and he should have a claim for damages which should be laid at the door of the appropriate liability insurance policy.

Lawyers charging $silly per hour help no-one. Not the chap with the injured eye. Not the people (i.e. all of us) who have to pay ever-increasing sums for necessary insurance policies due to the fact that a large proportion of the legal eagles in the compensation sector are like pigs at a trough and make the whole process of litigation following damage, injury or financial loss a ridiculously expensive affair thanks to their over-inflated idea of what a law degree is worth.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the law firm representing the victim in this case made a sum of money that amounts to a decent fraction of what the injured party was awarded in damages. And none of the lawyers are worrying about losing the sight in one eye. Most of them will be more worried about being a bit late home from work.

Sorry for the rant, but the money pit that exists for a certain sector of the legal profesion to milk like a set of udders is a pet hate of mine. I deal with insurance companies and compenstaion culture lawyers on a daily basis through my occupation and it's an absolute scandal how much the modern civil law system costs every man jack just in terms of the increased premiums on car insurance alone.

Hope your friend has a full recovery and heals quick.

i'll play devil's advocate here since I am a plaintiff's lawyer. I don't handle personal injury cases. I represent employees in wrongful termination suits and on other employment related issues.

The vast majority of our clients hire us on a contingent basis. Under this arrangement, we only get paid if we win, and often lay out a lot of expenses. We get paid well when we win (usually a third) because we assume all the risk. If we lose, we lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in time and expenses.

Because we take cases primarily on a contingent basis, we don't take frivolous cases. We can't afford it. On average, we see about thirty prospective clients per month. Out of the thirty, we agree to take one or two per month.

Most personal injury firms operate the same way. They can't afford to take dogs, either. I don't agree with the point of view that lawyers are responsible for rising insurance premiums because of frivolous lawsuits and runaway verdicts. In connection with the recent push for tort reform and damage caps, I have seen statistics that show that the amount of damages awarded in lawsuits around the country has decreased over the last ten years. While I acknowledge that the reports I have seen are published by organizations like the American Trial Lawyers Association, it makes sense to me that the primary reason for increases in insurance premiums is that insurers are passing onto the consumer losses they have suffered because of poorly performing investments or catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina. However, the insurance carriers scapegoat the lawyers, who make a very easy target.

Lawyers and the media are necessary evils. There are certainly cases that appear to go to far. many of these are reversed on appeal. like the famous mcdonald's coffee case. That award was dramatically reduced on appeal. What people don't know is that McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints about persons being severly burned before anything was done. President Bush referred to the case about the man getting hurt while trimming his hedges with a lawnmower. The fact is that case never happened. It is an urban myth.

But, if you don't have lawyers, there is no one to check the companies who would put out dangerous products, the doctors who are negligent, the companies who engage in false accounting practices and securities fraud, etc. A lot of my practice is representing whistleblowers against large medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies in NJ. I am jaded because of my job, but I have seen things I never would have believed before I began practicing law.

So give the lawyers a break. You might need one one day. And if you hit a ball OB and break a car window or hit someone, don't worry. There should be insurance that covers it. And the insurance company accepted both the risk and the premiums. So don't feel too bad for them. No one made them write the policy.

Certainly an erudite response and many of the points are valid - and insurance companies themselves are no angels when it comes to recouping losses in short order following disappointing investments and/or large payouts owing to unforseen and expensive circumstances. And we all know that most insurers are more slippery than a teflon-coated eel when it comes to actually paying out should you have the temerity and cheek to make any sort of claim.

In the UK where I live, the cost of insurance has risen alarmingly in recent years in many areas of necessary cover such as motor, home and travel insurance. The rising costs are pretty much proprtionate to the inexorable rise in the number of claims for monetary damages and the ever-increasing cost of legal representation.

Gone are the days where a minor RTA would be dealt with by a swift and efficient exchange of driver and vehicle details enabling the matter to be sorted out in short order by the respective insurers. Now, the majority of minor accidents and collisions result in emergency services involvement and a human version of the Dying Swan being played out on the carriageway as people sit in their cars making sure that they appear mortally wounded for the arrival of the inevitable paramedic or ambulance vehicles to assist in their claim for damages. The whole pantomime causes danger and inconvenience for other road users, has an attendant cost in terms of the emergency services resources required, and results in a costly legal quest to garner 'some compo' for the supposedly injured parties that costs us all a fortune in bumped up premiums to cover the cost. In short, it's a collossal waste of time, effort and money and, potentially, can impact upon the level of service that can be offered to genuine cases of injury. It abstracts police and ambulance resources from other, more genuine cases. The whole state of affairs is self-perpetuating since people are well aware that they can have a nice windfall with a bit of play acting. A well known advert for an ambulance-chasing legal firm in the UK proudly proclaims 'Where There's Blame There's A Claim' and people are only too willing to take advantage of the situation, bolstered by such nonsense. Our statistics show that injuries are now five times more likely following vehicular collisions than they were twenty years ago - and that's despite the vast improvements in vehicle design and safety equipment. Surprising? Not really. Want to guess what the increase in compensation claims arising from collisions has been in the same approximate timeframe? You guessed it...

I know that all lawyers will have us know that they worked long and hard to get to where they are; but so have a lot of other people who don't have an over-inflated view of their worth. And how some solicitors and barristers have the unmitigated gall to charge the hourly rates and fees they do is absolutely beyond me and many others. Our publicly-funded legal system is in dire need of some sort of rework since there are currently any number of ways that the system can be exploited in order that certain legal professionals literally use it as a licence to print money. When someone wants to charge me 75 quid to knock out a letter that I'm perfectly capable of composing myself in about 10 or 15 minutes, I have to ask who they think they're trying to kid.

The bottom line is, the current compensation culture is now ingrained in most people's psyche and it is becoming ludicrously expensive to support. We're all paying to 'reward' people for having the presence of mind to exagerate or feign injury at the scene and everyone is now paying a hefty premium to support all the nonsense.

Sadly, the days of people dusting themselves down and counting themselves lucky to walk away with just a stiff neck for a couple of days after an accident are long gone it seems. Now, they're seeing dollar signs before their eyes and are on the phone to some solicitor faster than you can say 'This'll be worth five grand of anyone's money if I play my cards right...'

I will say that the incident alluded to by the OP is unfortunate and of course I hope the chap recovers; but honestly, who's to blame for that accident to the degree that they need to be sued for a few hundred thousand dollars?

noob

The problem is every injury doesn't automatically mean someone else is at fault, or that someone else could have done anything to prevent the injury. This case is a perfect example. The golf ball could have easily been a rock. The landscaping company did nothing negligent in their actions. IOW, sometimes, SH!T happens.

You do not have a right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. You shouldn't expect the tool manufacturer to make you and your lawyer independantly wealthy.

The solution to frivalous lawsuits is simple: The plantiff should not collect punitive damages, only actual damages. By definition, punitive damages should be used to punish the defendant, not reward the plantiff. And the loser should pay all costs associated with the lawsuit.

So because the club is in a position to pay out and to spread the cost around and because they have insurance they should be held responsible? What if it was a broke muni w/ no insurance? By your logic they would not be responsible in that case. Sometimes sh1t happens for no reason and sometimes bad stuff happens to good people through no fault of their own. That doesn't mean that it is automatically somebody elses's fault. This is one of those cases. I feel for the guy, but the club should not have had to pay him 3/4 of a million dollars. This falls under the sh1t happens heading.




I really wish Congress would pass a national law that makes a plaintiff pay for ALL costs if they lose. That means the defense, the judge, the bailiffs and so on and so forth. That way we wouldn't get these idiots suing everybody and their Mom for every little perceived injustice. Take for example this no talent a55 clown, who BTW, is a judge of all things.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3119381&page=1


How much of our tax money did this a55hole waste? He should be liable every single cent he cost us.

Wouldn't that kind of give free reign to big companies and well heeled individuals?

When is a political discussion not a political discussion?

The poor man lost an eye in a freak accident and you're making jokes?

if you force plaintiffs to pay legal fees if they lose, many people with valid claims will be afraid to sue. You will effectively shut the courthouse door to persons with lower or no incomes. For example, if you are terminated from a job because of your age, race, etc., and have a family and no income, you may be afraid to sue if you have to pay the employer's legal fees if you do not prevail. In contrast, the persons who would commit wrongs will have less incentive to play by the rules because they will not be held accountable. Or you could be the victim in a serious products liabilty case, which will cost a lot of money to try. You may decide not to go forward because of the risk of attorney's fees. Then, you will not be compensated, and other people may fall victim to the same injury.

Punitive damages are not available in every case, and there are limits in most jurisdictions. They do play a role in deterring outrageous conduct. If, for example, a large medical device company puts a knowingly defective product on the market, and makes millions or billions of dollars off it, they should get hit with punitive damages if that product seriously injures someone. If you do not award punitive damages, the company will have no incentive to comply with the law, because the individual verdicts will never come close to eclipsing the profits made on many of these products.

Again, with respect to frivolous lawsuits, these lawsuits don't result in multimillion punitive damages verdicts. Most of them are dismissed very early on, and the lawyers who take them don't stay in business for long. It is simple economics. The idea that frivolous lawsuits are responsible for higher taxes, insurance premiums etc. is a concept that many people accept on faith but does not withstand scrutiny.

I agree with the concept of spreading the risk. In most states, a percentage of auto insurance premiums go to a fund used to pay the claims of motorists injured by uninsured drivers. This makes sense to me. I also believe that in this case with the golf ball, the result was a correct result. The club obviously viewed the incident as a foreseeable result. If it did not, it would not have purchased the insurance or agreed to pay the claim. And, as I said earlier, the insurance company accepted the premium and the risk. So what is wrong with making the insurance company live up to its bargain?

that kind of sucks

what if it were a rock or a big fat bug that the mower spit out? Would nature be sued? Seems like a freak thing to happen. I understand liability, but this seems like a comedy of accidents.

To be perfectly honest, I'm kinda surprised they didn't sue the golf ball manufacturer, the manufacturer of the club used to hit it there, the manufacturer of the bag used to bring it to the course, Old Tom Morris, and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews...

Tort Reform Isn't Political?

I guess if we don't say that it's political, then it isn't political.

That would have been an interesting lawsuit.

30-odd million quid for not being able to wear a particular pair of trousers????

Wow.

Wait 'til our Zanussi goes for a burton and I have to go to work in a backup pair. I'll slap a lawsuit on them so fast it'll make theirs heads spin.

Unlike their washing machine.

I think that it makes no sense to assign liability to the club when the golf ball in question came from a private residence and the landscapers were not employees or under contract with the club.

The fact that you want to go after the club is wrong because a) for all you know the homeowner chips balls in his backyard. The plaintiff is saying that the ball came from the club and cannot prove that. b) they have money and the typical lawyer credo is to sue anyone with a dollar to their name. c) Insurance is there to make you whole again, not to allow for profiteering. They also only pay when their client is at fault. d) The insurance claim needs to be against the landscaping company. But for their operation of the lawnmower, the golf ball would not have left the yard.

However, the landscaping company probably doesn't have the deep pockets of the country club. But you can keep trying to convince us that it's the country club's fault.

Why don't you assign liability to the auto manufacturer? But for the safety glass not withstanding an impact from the golf ball, the man would not have suffered eye damage. They have deeper pockets than the country club.

No, it would make it so every jackass who stubs his toe wouldn't sue and waste everybody else's time and money. People would only sue if they actually had a claim.

Or maybe it would be better to make it so the judge can waive the fees if he thinks the suit had at least SOME merit. But when you sue somebody for $67 mil over a pair of pants, not only should you have to pya ALL of the costs associated w/ your jackassery, but you should also be shot on the court house steps.

So everyone who actually has a legitimate claim wins?



A judge already has the authority to toss out a frivolous suit - which is what should have happened to the a** clown.

What country's legal system do you prefer as an alternative to ours? India's? Iran's? France's? How about Korea's?

He had a clear case against the landscape company. I can't figure out how the golf clourse was liable.

I worked at this course early in my career and my aunt and uncle live on the 15th hole. There is only 1 hole that makes it possiby to have a ball go into the street and hit a car. Its really hard to do that though. There are trees lining the street and any ball hit in that direction would hit the trees first and trickle into the street.

This is a high end club that doesnt like being in any newspaper or have any attention to it. The people that own the course are owners of a large bus company in NJ and some mafiosos. They have the money to end whatever was bringing their name out in public.

My aunt and uncles house had been nailed a few times with golf balls and the club takes care of any home damaged by golf balls or other objects associated with the golf club. They dont have to but I guess they figure why not.