Woman Blinded At Ryder Cup

Roland Butter

Roland Butter

Roland Butter

Permabanned
Joined
13 Apr 2017
Posts
969
Location
scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/45734449

She is planning legal action as no warnings were given by course officials.

I commiserate deeply with her, but even French women can hardly be
ignorant of the fact that the game of golf largely consists of people hitting
small, solid balls very hard into the air, some of which may stray into the
assembled crowd.

Surely there were disclaimer signs ?
 
It's absolutely tragic, but her initial reaction shouldn't be compensation.

The article didn't even make a whole load of sense either.
 
The article I read suggested that she was pursuing compensation in order to cover her medical bills now and in the futue, otherwise she has to stump it all up herself.

If I unexpectedly went blind in one eye after a freak accident, i would be doing the same thing to cover my medical costs too.
 
Seems like she's suing because the organisers didn't follow up to see how she was, which is pretty spiteful

She also says in the video she plays/played golf herself so she must be aware of the dangers
 
I have every sympathy for Ms Remande and I can quite understand why she is concerned about medical costs, now and in the future.

However, I don't really see that she has any reasonable case to argue against the organisers. What should happen in cases such as this is that there should be some sort of "no fault" 3rd party insurance cover.

For what it is worth, the European Tour organisation have said Ryder Cup tickets contained ground regulations which clearly stated that spectators acknowledge the general risks associated with golf, including risks with errant shots.


Stuff happens - blame God!
 
ci_newman said:
If I unexpectedly went blind in one eye after a freak accident, i would be doing the same thing to cover my medical costs too.
Click to expand...

Why? She should have her own insurance surely?

It is one thing to sue if there is some negligence etc.. but rather another thing to chance it as in this case.

I mean this is along the lines of suing McDonalds after spilling a cup of tea down yourself because they didn't put a warning sign on the cup telling you that tea is hot.
 
dowie said:
I mean this is along the lines of suing McDonalds after spilling a cup of tea down yourself because they didn't put a warning sign on the cup telling you that tea is hot.
Click to expand...

Been there - done that......

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued McDonald’s and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.

Typical reaction: Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot? And McDonald’s didn’t pour the coffee on her, she spilled it on herself! Besides, she was driving the car and wasn’t paying attention.
Click to expand...
 
Yup, I couldn't remember if it was coffee or tea (should have realised given it was an American) but I did remember reading about something along those lines. :D

That website tries to justify it though, seemingly serving coffee at a like 80-something degrees C is unacceptable.... I'm sure there are people who get burned with cups of tea at home too

There are plenty of cafes that will serve tea with water that has just boiled in a kettle, so at an even higher temperature.
 
Last edited:
stockhausen said:
I have every sympathy for Ms Remande and I can quite understand why she is concerned about medical costs, now and in the future.

However, I don't really see that she has any reasonable case to argue against the organisers. What should happen in cases such as this is that there should be some sort of "no fault" 3rd party insurance cover.

For what it is worth, the European Tour organisation have said Ryder Cup tickets contained ground regulations which clearly stated that spectators acknowledge the general risks associated with golf, including risks with errant shots.


Stuff happens - blame God!
Click to expand...

Legally you would assume she hasn't got a leg to stand on, but not may of these cases get taken to court.

So it would be up to a courts to decide if the warning clause is enough to absolve the organisation from responsibility.
They would have to decide if it was just an unfortunate accident that is inherently possible due to the nature of the sport or if they have could have reasonably done something that could have made this avoidable.

Or maybe she is hoping they will just settle out of court to avoid the bad publicity, as it's not a poor sport. (Hence the news interviews)
 
Why are people so flamin' unable to take any type of responsibility for themselves anymore? It's always someone else fault.

The organisers didn't give enough warning that she might be hit by a ball? What did she expect going to a GOLF tournament?!

Good grief.
 
I guess they be forced to ware safety hats and glasses one day.

I think this sort of thing is expected to happen in golf, I don't think it's right for her to try to sue them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom