HOME > CASES&JUDGMENTS > Judgments > Liability for personal injury while playing golf; sight loss in the left eye after being hit by a ball struck by an accompanying player

[January 2016]

Liability for personal injury while playing golf; sight loss in the left eye after being hit by a ball struck by an accompanying player

The following shows a case where a person lost sight in the left eye after being hit by a ball struck by an accompanying player while playing golf on the golf course, and claimed damages against the victimizer and a caddie working for the golf course.

The court ordered the victimizer, the caddie, and a company running the golf course for which the caddie works to pay damages 44,000,000 yen in total, apportioning fault at 30% to the victim, at 60% to the victimizer, and at 10% to the caddie under the rule of comparative negligence (Judgment by the Okayama District Court on April 5 in 2013).

  • Page 88 of Hanrei Jiho No.2210

Summary of the case

Plaintiff:
X (consumer)
Defendant:
Y1 (player accompanying X)
Y2 (accompanying caddie working for the golf course)
Y3 (company running the golf course)

X (aged 60 at the time of the accident) had years of experience of playing golf and played golf two or three times a month before the accident. X's score was around 90. Y1 had about 20 years of experience of playing golf and also played golf two or three times a month at that time. Y1's score was around 100. X and Y1 had played golf together several times before the accident and they knew each other's technical level and tendency in play. Y1 did not take much time to make a shot when the turn comes and sometimes shanked at an angle around 30 degrees (a missed shot by which a ball goes at an angle or sideways).

Y2 had about 20 years of experience as a caddie at the golf course. Based on the experience, Y2 figured out that there was no need to remind X and Y1 of golf manners and rules which are common sense among players (e.g. "Do not go forward when an accompanying player is about to make a shot") after seeing their behaviors on the course from the 10th hole to 13th hole, while Y2 considered it was necessary to give them technical support such as choosing and carrying golf clubs.

When X and Y1 made their first shot at the 13th hole, both of the balls fell on the rough about 110 yards (about 100meters) from the green by airline distance, on the right side of the fairway. The distance between the two balls was just 2m or so. Since the land between the ball falling points and the green slopes up towards right, it was not possible to see the green from the position for making the second shot.

Y2 checked the ball falling points of their first shot and told X and Y1 that both points were about 110 yards (about 100meters) from the green in an airline. Then, Y2 stood near the cart, which was about 40m from the position for making their second shot.

The falling point of X's first shot ball was a bit closer to the teeing ground (the starting point of each hole) than that of Y1's ball, so X made the second shot ahead of Y1. After that, X walked to the slope, which was about 8m ahead and 30 degrees right from the position where Y1 would make the second shot (60 degrees from the direction to the green) without checking Y1's movements, in order to check if X's second shot ball was on the green. Although Y1 recognized that Y1 sometimes shanked at an angle around 30 degrees, Y1 stood just about 2m off the position where X made the second shot, and made the second shot soon as usual, just paying attention to the ball and the direction toward the green. Y1's second shot ball shanked and Y1 uttered "Ah". Then X turned around and the ball directly hit X's left eye.

At that time, Y2 did not recognize clearly that X was standing ahead of Y1 on the right or that Y1 was about to make the second shot when X was standing ahead of Y1 on the right. Therefore, Y2 did not instruct X to step back or tell Y1 to wait for a while before making the second shot.

Reasons

1. X's fault (comparative negligence)

Under the golf manners, a player shall not stand ahead of an accompanying player who is about to make a shot. However, X was preoccupied with checking if X's second shot ball was on the green and carelessly moved forward without checking Y1's movements, believing that Y1's ball would not come to X. X was at fault in this respect.

2. Y1's fault

Y1 recognized that Y1 sometimes shanked at an angle around 30 degrees. Y1 should have checked whether or not any persons including X were within range of Y1's second shot if the ball should shank at an angle around 30 degrees. However, Y1 believed that Y1's ball would go straight toward the green. Since X did not have a habit to go ahead of other's shot position, Y1 believed that X did not go forward and made the second shot without checking X's movements, and then Y1 shanked the second shot. Y1 was at fault in this respect.

3. Y2's fault

Under the golf manners, a player shall not stand ahead of an accompanying player who is about to make a shot, and a player shall not make a shot when an accompanying player and/or any other persons are within range of the shot.

Y2 as an accompanying caddie should have prevented the player from taking an action against the manners. Y2 believed that it would not be necessary to tell the basic manners/rules to X and Y1 after observing their actions till they arrived to the 13th hole. Then, Y2 did not give them a necessary warning without watching them carefully. Y2 was at fault in this respect.

4. Negligence ratio of the three persons

The court apportioned fault at 30% to X, at 60% to Y1, and at 10% to Y2 under the rule of comparative negligence. While it was unable to find illegality in Y3 itself, which was the management body of the golf course, Y3 was found to be liable as the employer of Y2 within the Y2's negligence ratio under Article 715 of the Civil Code. X's damages were found to be about 63,000,000 yen. Y1 and the other parties were jointly obligated to pay the remaining balance of about 44,000,000 yen after deduction of 30% and delay damages from the time of the accident.

Explanation

1. Player's fault

a.Precedents related to cases where an accompanying player or a caddie was hit by a ball
There are several judicial precedents related to accidents while playing golf. The following precedents are related to cases where an accompanying player ahead was hit by a ball, like the above case.
In the reference precedent (9), the victim was determined to be fault at 60% because the victim had been standing ahead of an accompanying player and seeing the shot unthinkingly, while the victimizer was also found to be at fault because the victimizer made a shot unthinkingly without telling the victim to step back to the safe place. In the reference precedent (6), the victim was found to be fault at 40%, although the background is similar to that of the reference precedent (9). In the reference precedent (8) related to a case where a caddie had been standing near a player and had been hit by a ball, the player was also found to be at fault while the caddie was found to be fault at 50% under the rule of comparative negligence. In the reference precedent (5), a background of which is similar to that of reference precedent (8), a caddie was found to be fault at 80% under the rule of comparative negligence. In the reference precedent (2) related to a case where an accompanying player had been hit and injured by the approach shot struck by a golf beginner, the golf beginner was also found to be at fault while the injured player who had stepped forward was found to be fault at 60% under the rule of comparative negligence.
In the case of this article, X and Y1 knew each other. X was found to be fault at 30% under the rule of comparative negligence because X knew Y1's tendency in play. The judgment was reasonable compared to other precedents, considering Y1's fault and other circumstances.
b.Precedents related to cases where a preceding player was hit by a ball
In the precedents related to cases where a preceding player was hit by a ball struck by a following player, the court judged that the following player had been obligated to check the existence of any preceding player before making a shot and that the following player was solely at fault for the accident. (reference precedents (3) & (4))

2. Caddie's fault

In the reference precedent (7), the court judged that not only the victim player but also the caddie had been liable for checking the circumstances on the course, and the victim player was found to be fault at 60% and the caddie was found to be fault at 40% under the rule of comparative negligence. In the reference precedent (1), the victim player was found to be fault at 80% and the caddie was found to be fault at 20% under the rule of comparative negligence. How much a caddie should pay attention to and observe players varies depending on conditions such as experience of players. The precedent described on this article was the first precedent that the court considered negligence of the three parties: the player as a victimizer, the caddie, and the player as a victim.

Reference precedents

  1. Judgment by the Nagoya District Court on September 24, 1982
    (Page 197 of Hanrei Jiho No.1063, and page 107 of Hanrei Times No.483)
  2. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on September 26, 1991
    (Page 95 of Hanrei Jiho No.1417, and page 190 of Hanrei Times No.775)
  3. Judgment by the Tokyo District Court on August 27, 1993
    (Page 243 of Hanrei Times No.865)
  4. Judgment by the Tokyo High Court on August 8, 1994
    (Page 225 of Hanrei Times No.877)
  5. Judgment by the Kobe District Court on March 31, 1999
    (Page 114 of Hanrei Jiho No.1699)
  6. Judgment by the Tokyo High Court on November 2, 1999
    (Page 35 of Hanrei Jiho No.1709)
  7. Judgment by the Osaka District Court on October 26, 2000
    (Page 202 of Hanrei Times No.1071)
  8. Judgment of the Nagoya District Court on May 17, 2002
    (Page 124 of Hanrei Jiho No.1807)
  9. Judgment by the Osaka District Court on February 14, 2005
    (Page 112 of Hanrei Jiho No.1921, and page 249 of Hanrei Times No.1199)