That's bullxxxx. Spectators assume the risk of being down range on a golf course. It's like standing down a driving range asking to watch from out there. Koepka should not be responsible for that crap.
I doubt she would even sue Koepka. Most likely the tournament organizers.
People cannot sign away or waive basic human rights, it's illegal to even ask someone to do that in many countries (I assume France is one). Her case would just need to be that the tour knowingly put spectators in a position of danger, I believe. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that's what it is
To be honest I don't necessarily disagree. I've posted many times that golf tournaments allow fans to get too close, and someone would actually die one day
But legally someone cannot waive their right to an outcome like being hit hard enough to cause blindness. I don't think so in France anyway. Here we have laws like that
I'm no lawyer either but what "basic human right" would she have signed away or waived by buying her ticket ?
Most tickets for a whole variety of events acknowledge that there may be dangerous situations and the ticket holder hold the event harmless in case of injury.
She's not giving up any rights. She's acknowledging "stuff happens".
Now "negligence" is another story and if anyone can prove that the event should have and could have reasonably anticipated and prevented the event from happening that is another story.
I just read up on Brittany and the NHL did settle out of court but probably did so more for public relation issues than fear of losing in court.
Found this - https://www.law.du.e...5-Augustine.pdf
Didn't read it all but note the part that says "So where does the law stand on this issue? Consistently in favor of the teams, leagues, and/or event promoters. Courts operate under the premise that spectators assume the risk of
attending a game/event, and that it should be obvious to the spectator that a baseball, puck, tire,
or golf ball can hit them."
Being hit by a ball and getting bruised is one thing though, losing sight (suffering permanent damage) is another. I believe if you can prove in a court that this was a predictable outcome that was neglected you would have a case. As you mention. I think there's a fine line between risk you can assume and permanent damage that you cant be asked to waive
Like, getting hit by a puck that causes death is not something someone can waive I don't believe, even if the ticket states theres a risk of danger.
So this one might be a gray area. But I believe she's have a case, and at least get a settlement.
I may be wrong, I haven't read much on law in a few years
Different countries have different laws of course but if baseball is any sort of barometer for this sort of thing it would appear that if she gets a "settlement" it will be because the event organizer feels it would cost them more in negative publicity than it would to give her some ca$h.