Colm Campbell v County Sligo Golf Club, The Golfing Union of Ireland National Coaching Academy Ltd and Kevin Le Blanc
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 397 |
| Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | [Record No. 2018/241 P] |
| Court | High Court |
[2021] IEHC 397
[Record No. 2018/241 P]
THE HIGH COURT
Damages – Liability – Duty of reasonable care – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the defendants were liable
Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Campbell, on the 28th March, 2016, was a spectator at a vantage between the eleventh green and the twelfth tee which was to the left of the green, observing the quarter final of the West of Ireland Amateur Golf Championship at Rosses Point Golf Club in the County of Sligo. The third defendant, Mr Le Blanc, was playing the eleventh hole, which indicated that this was the third most difficult hole on the course. He was an elite amateur championship golfer at that time, having represented his country in that capacity abroad and, for a short time afterwards, became a professional golfer and, on this occasion, was playing off a plus 4 handicap. His shot from the tee had landed in the rough on the right hand side of the fairway. His second shot to the green, he had aimed slightly to the left. He could not see the green nor could he see the spectators, but could see the tip of the flag and was aware of the position of the flag on the green. He had used a 3 wood from his position in the rough. There were two main issues arising in this case, as to whether, firstly, this was a wayward shot which ought to have required the third defendant to shout “Fore” and, secondly, whether the plaintiff was, himself, in a safe position. In the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff he noted that there were no stewards to lead them to the vantage point or to tell them where to stand and, had he been directed to move elsewhere, he would have done so. He was struck by a golf ball and suffered numerous sequelae with problems ongoing. The plaintiff’s contention was that all three defendants, County Sligo Golf Club, The Golfing Union of Ireland National coaching Academy Limited and Mr Le Blanc, were liable for the damage caused to him and that they had a duty of care towards the spectators, which they failed to fulfil. The contention was that, under the principles of an occupier’s liability with reference to McCarthy v Kavanagh [2018] IEHC 101, he was owed a duty of reasonable care.
Held by O'Hanlon J that the preponderance of the evidence supported the contention of the defendants that no case had been actually made out against them in this case. O’Hanlon J kept in mind that this was an amateur sport, although played at an elite amateur level, and that the plaintiff was a recreational user responsible to a huge extent, as matters played out, for his own safety.
O'Hanlon J dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
Claim dismissed.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Bronagh O'Hanlon delivered on the 4th day of June, 2021
On the 28th March, 2016, the plaintiff was a spectator at a vantage between the eleventh green and the twelfth tee which was to the left of the green, observing the quarter final of the West of Ireland Amateur Golf Championship at Rosses Point Golf Club in the County of Sligo.
The third named defendant was playing the eleventh hole, which indicated that this was the third most difficult hole on the course. He was an elite amateur championship golfer at that time, having represented his country in that capacity abroad and, for a short time afterwards, became a professional golfer and, on this occasion, was playing off a plus 4 handicap. His shot from the tee had landed in the rough on the right hand side of the fairway. His second shot to the green, he had aimed slightly to the left. He could not see the green nor could he see the spectators, but could see the tip of the flag and was aware of the position of the flag on the green. He had used a 3 wood from his position in the rough. In broad terms, there are two main issues arising in this case, as to whether, firstly, this was a wayward shot which ought to have required the third named defendant to shout “Fore” And, secondly, whether the plaintiff was, himself, in a safe position.
The plaintiff freely admitted that he and his friends were talking with each other and not watching when the third named defendant hit the ball. The importance of his evidence was that they had been at or near the vantage point beside the eleventh green for between two and two and a half hours prior to this incident. He heard no signal that the shot was being taken nor did he hear any warning. You could see a number of holes from the particular vantage point from just beside the twelfth tee box and beside the eleventh green. He confirmed that he was never told on arrival where he should stand or otherwise. He gave evidence of his prowess as a golfer and the obligations of a person before they play a shot to make sure it is safe to do so but that, in terms of his own personal safety, he felt quite happy about where he was standing. He agreed that he did not see where the ball was hit from. He was struck on the left hand side of the temple area of his head while he was looking up the eleventh fairway towards the tee box and he estimated that there were fifteen to twenty people standing at that point but that he was not watching what was happening. He put his own position as being over by a path and estimated that from where he was standing when he was hit to the green was 30 or 40 feet but that he was not a hundred percent sure about that. He agreed with the contention put to him that, for the shot to have been a wayward one, he would have had to be standing where he now says he was standing and he agreed with that. He agreed that when the third named defendant hit his shot, he could not see the green, but he could see the top of the pin on the flag and that that was 23 steps to the front and four steps from the right and that it was over to the right side of the green.
Like the plaintiff, Mr Hugh Cassidy, who also gave evidence, was a member of Murvagh Golf Club in County Donegal and he himself was a regular attendee at the very famous West of Ireland Championship. He described himself as being halfway up the length of the green or maybe short of halfway, but standing at fifteen yards, possibly twenty yards, back from the green. He did note that if you were on the fairway, you could see the crowd on the left hand side because it is higher ground and he said it was common case that the ground drops and that the whole activity seemed to be to the right side but the ground dropping obscured that view. He confirmed that there was no shout of any kind and he felt that when his friend, the plaintiff, was hit, there was a ferocious thud which he deemed to indicate a pretty serious impact and that the plaintiff began to fall and Mr Cassidy helped him onto the ground. He agreed that he was situated at the eleventh hole, which he regarded as a safe place to watch the golf come in but he did accept that, at these events, one could find a wayward shot which would present a problem and that that was just the “beast of golf”. He felt that from his account of where he was standing, he could not see how it was different to the plaintiff's but he argued that it did not matter any way. He felt that this particular shot was 25 metres wide off the mark and went fifteen to twenty metres further on from the green. He felt that once a person hit a shot, a good golfer would know instinctively whether the shot was a good or bad one and he said if such a golfer, having hit the shot knowing that there were people to the left of the green, did not shout “Fore”, it is a breach of etiquette and the responsibility is on the golfer to ensure that he is familiar with and complies with the rules of golf and rules of the golf club and that they may exercise care in all matters relating to the playing of the game.
One item to note is that Dr Jordan's, the plaintiff's engineer, photographs were admitted but he himself did not give evidence. Mr Ross Mooney, engineer, called on behalf of the third named defendant was also involved in the joint inspection and he indicated that there had been a dispute at the joint inspection regarding the point at which the first shot of the third named defendant was hit from. He identified this location further down to the right on the embankment closer to the bottom of it. He referred to a hatched area in green and yellow as representing the location identified by the plaintiff where the drive landed, i.e. the first shot. Mr Mooney's evidence was that, in fact, it landed further down to the right on the embankment, closer to the tee box, but that the distance was not of great relevance, rather, the relevance lay in the position on the embankment because that is what affects the line of sight. The third named defendant was of the view that he had taken the shot further down this patch of rough at the bottom of the embankment but not quite as far over as the tenth fairway and he disputed that that where he stood was the same location as identified in the hatched area on photograph 4 of the plaintiff's engineer's photographs. Photograph 6 of Mr Mooney's photographs identified the actual spot from which the third named defendant said he took his shot and his evidence was that he took the shot from where the photograph is taken, not from where the marker is and that the distance there would be 200 metres. This Court accepted the evidence of Mr Mooney, engineer, and of the third named defendant.
This witness gave evidence in his capacity as an executive officer of Connaught Golf with the Golfing Union of Ireland. Mr Enda Lonergan gave...
To continue reading
Request your trial