Golfers’ claim not par for the course

Keoghs’ solicitor, Jane Coffey, recently worked with Aviva to successfully defend a personal injury claim where a keen golfer injured his ankle after slipping on wet grass at a course he subsequently claimed should have been shut and warning signs posted.

In October 2008, after heavy rain in his home area of Carlisle had forced the closure of a number of golf courses, the claimant telephoned more courses before finding Hexham, 30 miles away, was open.

He and two colleagues then drove to the course and commenced their round at 11am. After playing 17 holes, the claimant teed off at the last and, while walking down a slope, he slipped. He claimed that the course should have been shut and that warning signs should have been posted.

The defendant denied liability from the outset, citing the weather reports from the previous days which showed the Hexham area had been spared significant rainfall and that, conversely, it had been mainly dry and fine. They had also inspected the course and deemed it safe to play.

The test to be applied was that of the decision in Nessa v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (2000) – whether what was presented posed a real source of harm or danger.

In early-2012 the claimant put forward a Part 36 offer of £15,000.00 which was rejected by the defendant. Prior to the trial the claimant put forward a further Part 36 offer of £9,000.00. This was also rejected. In addition, the claimant was claiming £7,152.67 in special damages for loss of earnings. The defendant had assessed quantum for generals in the region of £8-£8,500.00 with specials of around £4,500.00

Both parties attended trial on 5 October 2012 before District Judge (DJ) Hughes.

The claimant and one of his witnesses were cross-examined by counsel as were three witnesses for the defendant, all employees of the golf club.

Although DJ Hughes said that the claimant undoubtedly had an unpleasant experience and a nasty shock which was very painful, judgement was given for the defendant based on the following;

• The claimant was highly experienced - with a handicap of 4.
• A witness for the claimant had played at Hexham before and had not found the 18th hole dangerous. He was also an experienced golfer and of a similar golfing handicap.
• 16 people had teed off after the claimant, which indicated that the course was fit to play.
• Evidence of the weather conditions on the day indicated there had been no significant rain in the preceding days.
• Counsel for the claimant had abandoned submissions that the course should have been shut and instead had concentrated on the issue that the duty of the golf club was knowing the properties and danger of slipping and that they should have pointed players towards a different route from the one the claimant took when he had his accident.
• Submission from counsel for the defendant was that this was simply an accident.

In these instances the conditions on the golf course at Hexham were not unusual, especially for an experienced golfer, and signage was not required. DJ Hughes found no loss of care for the defendant and the claim was dismissed.

Jane said: “This case is a further example of the courts taking a common sense approach to Occupier's Liability cases where there is a voluntary assumption of risk. DJ Hughes found the accident may not have been prevented even if the Defendant had signs in place and the Claimant would have made up his own mind.

“The case of Staples v West Dorset District Council - (unreported 5th April 1995) was instrumental in supporting our defence and referred to in the judgment. This case supports the fact that a sign posted after the event cannot be used to infer that it should have been posted beforehand to discharge the common law duty.”

The saving for our client in this case was over £50,000.