Campbell v County Sligo Golf Club & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 397 (04 June 2021)

Campbell v County Sligo Golf Club & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 397 (04 June 2021)

The court found that the third defendant (golfer) was not negligent as he could not see the plaintiff or other spectators from his position, had only 40 seconds to play his shot, and acted in accordance with the rules and etiquette of golf. There was no obligation to shout 'Fore' as there was no evidence of a wayward shot or visible danger to others. The first and second defendants (organisers) were not negligent as the plaintiff was a recreational user, the duty owed was not to act with reckless disregard, and the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or wanton disregard. The plaintiff, an experienced golfer, was expected to take reasonable care for his own safety....

Citation
[2021] IEHC 397
Parties
Plaintiff: Colm Campbell; First Defendant: County Sligo Golf Club; Second Defendant: The Golfing Union of Ireland National Coaching Academy Limited; Third Defendant: Kevin Le Blanc
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Negligence / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Occupiers' Liability, Spectator Safety, Recreational User, Standard of Care in Sports
Tort Law Sports Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care Spectator Safety Recreational User Standard of Care in Sports

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colm Campbell

Plaintiff

County Sligo Golf Club

First Defendant

The Golfing Union of Ireland National Coaching Academy Limited

Second Defendant

Kevin Le Blanc

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Negligence / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a spectator at a golf tournament
  2. 2 Whether the golfer (third defendant) was negligent in failing to shout 'Fore' or otherwise warn the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the organisers (first and second defendants) were negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures for spectators

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third defendant (golfer) was not negligent as he could not see the plaintiff or other spectators from his position, had only 40 seconds to play his shot, and acted in accordance with the rules and etiquette of golf. There was no obligation to shout 'Fore' as there was no evidence of a wayward shot or visible danger to others. The first and second defendants (organisers) were not negligent as the plaintiff was a recreational user, the duty owed was not to act with reckless disregard, and the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or wanton disregard. The plaintiff, an experienced golfer, was expected to take reasonable care for his own safety....

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed