ELSHAM GOLF CLUB COURSE RISK ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 ELSHAM GOLF CLUB COURSE RISK ASSESSMENT The management committee will be aware that this paper has been produced in response to an incident that occurred in 2007 where a golfer lost an eye having being hit by a golf ball. Extract from case notes: Golfer who lost eye after being hit by a ball wins 400,000 damages A man who lost an eye through being hit by a ball during a game of golf is set to receive around 400,000 in damages after a judge ruled in his favour. Novice golfer Anthony Phee, 44, was struck more than four years ago during a round at Niddry Castle golf course in Winchburgh, West Lothian. He sued James Gordon, the man who struck the bad shot, and the golf club at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, seeking damages for the injury he suffered. He said the incident had been a 'harrowing experience' to partially lose his sight. Lord Brailsford who heard the case ruled today that Mr Gordon was 70 per cent responsible for the accident. The remaining 30 per cent of liability rested with the golf club for its 'failure' to erect proper warning signs on the course. The final level of Mr Phee's payout will be set at a future court hearing. However, his lawyers said damages have been agreed of around 400,000. Mr Phee, from the Manchester area, was playing golf with three colleagues on August when the accident happened. He had not played on that the course before. He was struck in the eye by Mr Gordon's mis-hit tee shot which veered sharply to the left, as the four made their way to the 7th hole. The path they were on skirted the 18th hole, which Mr Gordon was playing. Mr Phee argued that Mr Gordon had played an unsafe shot and was at fault. The case against the club was based on an alleged breach of its duty of care towards the player. Lord Brailsford found that primary liability for the incident rested with Mr Gordon, saying he had been over-confident in his ability to hit a good shot that day. He stated: 'When Mr Gordon arrived at the 18th tee on the day in question, he made the error of over-estimating the likelihood of his tee shot following its desired or intended path to its intended target and, simultaneously, under-

2 estimating the degree of risk to which his shot would place the pursuer and his three companions then proceeding on the path between the 6th green and the 7th tee. 'These risks should have been within the contemplation of Mr Gordon because he should have appreciated that every golfer, no matter his or competence, will make bad shots'. 'On the basis of his own evidence, I consider that these errors were caused by an inflated degree of confidence occasioned by what Mr Gordon considered, wrongly in my view, to be the very good round of golf he was having'. He added: 'As a result of this overconfidence Mr Gordon made his tee shot at a time when the exercise of reasonable care should have informed him that there was a foreseeable risk that his shot might be bad and, further, might encroach on the area being traversed by the pursuer. 'I consider that these risks should have been within the contemplation of Mr Gordon because he should have appreciated that every golfer, no matter his or her degree of competence, will make bad shots'. Lawyers defending the case challenged Mr Phee's evidence, that he ducked after hearing a warning shout, saying he had actually looked up. But the judge ruled that Mr Phee had not acted inappropriately, whatever he may have done. Lord Brailsford also said the golf club should have erected signs alerting path users to potential hazards. 'Experts considered that signs would have been a proper and effective way to draw risk to the attention of golfers and, moreover, that such signs, had they existed, would have been likely to have been heeded,' he said. 'I accordingly form the view that the failure to provide signs either at the 18th tee or in the area between the 6th green and 7th tee was a failure of duty'. David Sandison, senior partner of Lawford Kidd Solicitors in Edinburgh representing Mr Phee said: 'We are delighted that, after a long struggle, Mr Phee has been awarded compensation for his injuries. Damages have been agreed at around 400,000'.

3 The purpose of this report is therefore to highlight areas on the golf course where there is a risk of being hit by a flying object (i.e. golf ball) and if there are any specific controls Elsham can implement to reduce the risk potential. The assessment was carried out by the following people: Mr. R. Andrews Vice President Elsham Golf Club Mr. Colin Hopper Head Greenkeeper Elsham Golf Club Mr. Chris Goodall Assistant Greenkeeper Elsham Golf Club Mr. John Peach Health and Safety Risk Consultant, Chartis Insurance. As a starting point for the review Mr. Peach discussed the principles of risk assessment with those present and specifically what is termed the hierarchy of controls Using the above structure this assessment has been carried out with the above principles in mind and the findings are based on how best to control each situation. It has to be remembered that an errant shot can always happen but when considering the above principles one overriding factor should always be in ones mind: ELIMINATION i.e. if there is no risk if people do not standing in front of the person striking the ball the risk is eliminated.

4 Therefore wherever practicable this MUST be the golf clubs first port of call where considering the appropriate control measures. Before going into a hole by hole assessment the personnel involved in this assessment would also like to highlight the following points to the committee as it is felt that they also pose an ongoing risk to individuals on the golf course but also to the golf club. Visiting Parties Like many golf courses Elsham is looking to increase revenue from visitors be it through formally arranged golf days or through the casual visitor to the golf club. Returning to the incident noted at the front of this paper it is evident that Elsham MUST be clear as to the competency standards that the club will except going forward as this may be the clubs most significant risk exposure. Near Misses It is also the view of personnel undertaking this review that as the club are somewhat unsure as to if there is a significant risk potential at varying locations throughout the course then the club should perhaps engage the members and visitors to highlight where incidents occur. As such there should be a mechanism to report incidents which can then be reviewed and after a designated period should be evaluated in association with the overall course review.

5 Hole 1: Areas where golfers are at risk: When golfers use the practice net in its current position Golfers standing in front of the person playing their shot Recommendation: Practice Net: Working on the principle previously stated the practice net should be relocated / engineered out to the position below thus:

6 Golfers standing in front of the person playing their shot This relates specifically to two key areas: lady golfers: They must not stand in front of gentlemen playing partners when playing in mixed competitions. Personnel accessing / egressing the practice area It is felt that to address the first point the following should be implemented as a standing course requirement: When playing mixed matches lady golfers must not stand in from of their male playing partners The position noted above is a typical area where ladies stand during mixed competitions and as such should be stopped With regards to personnel accessing / egressing the practice ground the following is suggested:

7 Recommendation: Signage should be erected at the front and rear to the greenkeepers buildings to prevent access thus eliminating the risk of people being struck by a golf ball or vehicle being used by the green staff. It is also proposed that access be sought via the route suggested below: Access will be essentially a one way system via the path on the 1 st hole to the ditch and then via the rear of the 9 th tee. Egress from the practice ground will be via the path on the 9 th hole It is proposed that signage will be erected to inform all golfers of the above requirement and also that the gap in front of the ladies tee is not be used for accessing the practice area.

8 Hole 2. After due consideration no recommendations were deemed necessary although with regards to near misses from balls going over the green onto the 2 nd tee should be monitored in line with the comments previously made within this report. Hole 3. Areas where golfers are at risk: Golfer utilizing the practice area both in relation to people playing the 3 rd and those playing the 8 th Hole. Eliminate Remove the practice ground from use? Engineering control Erect Fencing / Screen? Awareness Inform golfers of the risk (e.g. erect signage)? Recommendation Awareness Inform golfers of the risk Place small signage at strategic point on the practice ground advising the golfer of the risk of personnel on the 3 rd and 8 th holes and to stand aside when players are taking their shots.

9 Hole 4. Areas where golfers are at risk: Sitting on seat when players are playing from the back tee Recommendation Advice should again be provided of the potential risk with specific reference to ladies during mixed competitions. It was also felt that in line with the issues associated with the 1 st hole there is also a risk of people drowning in the water to the right of the green. Additional equipment should also be provided to the rear of the 8 th green.

10 Recommendation Hole 5 It is recommended that a life buoy be provided and erected at a suitable location (similar to that provided on the 1 st hole) Again it was felt that the main people at risk on this hole as ladies during mixed competitions (i.e. being struck whilst standing in the tree area) Recommendation It was felt that the gap should either: Be closed off during mixed competitions (Elimination) or A defined waiting area should be provided in the trees to advise ladies of the risk (Awareness) It was also felt that if this principle were adopted it should also apply to the ladies standing on the 17 th hole during mixed competitions.

11 It was also felt that golfers standing on the 6 th tee were also at risk of being struck (all be it limited) from errant shots from the 5 th fairway. Recommendation As signage is already in place warning golfers of the risk of striking people on the 7 th tee the wording should be amended to include (Awareness) the risk of balls being struck from the 5 th fairway. Hole 6 Recommendation: In line with the comments previously made it was felt that without considerable investment to reposition the green / tee (i.e. engineering out the risk) the current signage on both the 6 th and 7 th should be revisited to ensure appropriate wording and position is achieved. It was thought that consideration should also be given to providing a winter tee in front of the 7 th tee to reduce the risk to golfers during winter periods.

12 Hole 10 Recommendations: Although it was felt that a considerable amount of work has already been done the following points were noted:

13 Proposed position for additional trees Additional bunkering to the 18 th has reduced the risk of personnel standing on the 10 th tee it was thought that some additional trees could be planted Incidents involving near misses on the mound next to the 12 th tee should be monitored It was also felt additional trees could be planted to the rear of the 17 th green to engineer out the risk of balls struck from the 10 th tee