Golf club accident??

agrinnall

If your son does manage to get away without paying for the damage perhaps he should spend the £230 on some lessons so that he can keep the ball on the fairway - I'm guessing that the sheds and car parking is actually out of bounds.

magpiecottage

If the op's son hit the car then it seems to me that in the first instance it is the car owner, not the golf club that has any claim against him.

This would only not be changed if there was some contractual arrangement that provided that the club should pay for damage and then claim it back from the OP's son

That, in turn, could have some difficulties because ot may be deemed unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Either way, do not agree to anything. If they want to attempt a claim against him, get it put into writing and then forward that to your insurer unanswered.

ipri

"get away"?...you mean not responsible surely ? the club have paid the man before any responsibility has been established ...in the assumption that Son will reimburse them. "Guessing out of bounds"...tell that to Tiger Woods pal.

Retrogamer

He would only be "required" to pay for the damage if he was found to be liable through negligence.

ipri

Yes, I agree. Though hitting a ball on a golf course could hardly be considered negligent. Parking your car close to a driving area...?

Retrogamer

Strictly speaking i don't think your son will have to pay for the damages as he doesn't appear to have been negligent and it was a random accident.

From a social ethics standpoint though he might want to pay for it to keep things at the club civil and friendly and everyone remains happy.

comeandgo

There is case law on this and on that occasion both golfer and golf club were liable for injury which at the time lead a lot of golfers to take out insurance to cover themselves.

Retrogamer

Does such "case law" for people being injured set the precedent for civil lawsuits in small claims courts for damaged property?

ipri

£230 to keep them happy?

martinsurrey

comeandgo wrote: »

There is case law on this and on that occasion both golfer and golf club were liable for injury which at the time lead a lot of golfers to take out insurance to cover themselves.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/819/ANTHONY-PHEE-v-JAMES-GORDON-And-OTHERS

that's the case I believe you are referring too.

and its application to this case isn't that easy.

in that case the people were moving around the course and the golfer didn't exercise common scene (he hit a ball in the direction he could see people), so was found liable.

the course was found liable as they didn't have signs saying "don't hit balls if you can see people moving from the X green to Y tee"

In this case, the course has placed and allowed parking near a tee, it was to the OP, a fixed item, the course had allowed him to play with these obstacles in place knowing that them getting hit is a risk, so I would feel they are much more liable in this case.