The risk to which the plaintiff was exposed was a risk that a following player would strike the ball at a time when the Plaintiff was within range of being struck and thus at risk of being injured.  This is not a risk inherent in a game of golf and indeed, the rules of the game expressly provide that steps should be taken to avoid it.  The Second Defendant was aware of that and it is, as he acknowledged in evidence, a matter of common sense that a person does not strike the ball from a tee in such circumstances.  The second defendant acknowledged that had he seen the Plaintiff, which in the judge’s view he ought to have done, he would not have struck the ball because of the risk that the Plaintiff might have been struck.

It was the judges view that the Second Defendant was under a duty of care to the Plaintiff  which, in the circumstances, because of his defective lookout, he failed to discharge, as a result of which the Plaintiff sustained serious injury.

Judgment was awarded for the plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $2,610,795.72.

Reference: Australian Legal Information Institute (www.austlii.edu.au)

Written by Rod Hughes - August 2003