Phee v Gordon & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_181 (04 November 2011)

Phee v Gordon & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_181 (04 November 2011)

The first defender was primarily liable for failing to exercise reasonable care by striking a golf ball when there was a foreseeable risk to the pursuer, given the known possibility of wayward shots. The second defenders were also liable for failing to provide warning signage, which would likely have prevented the accident. Apportionment of liability was set at 70% to the first defender and 30% to the second defenders. There was no contributory negligence by the pursuer.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_181
Parties
Pursuer: Anthony Phee; First Defender: James Gordon; Second Defenders: Niddry Castle Golf Club (members)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Decree for the pursuer; liability apportioned 70% to first defender, 30% to second defenders.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care Causation Contributory Negligence Occupiers' Liability (scotland) Act 1960 +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Phee

Pursuer

James Gordon

First Defender

Niddry Castle Golf Club (members)

Second Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defender (golfer) owed and breached a duty of care to the pursuer by striking a golf ball when it was unsafe to do so.
  2. 2 Whether the second defenders (golf club) breached their duty as occupiers by failing to take reasonable care, specifically by not providing warning signage.
  3. 3 Whether the accident was caused by the defenders' breaches and whether any contributory negligence by the pursuer existed.

Ratio Decidendi

The first defender was primarily liable for failing to exercise reasonable care by striking a golf ball when there was a foreseeable risk to the pursuer, given the known possibility of wayward shots. The second defenders were also liable for failing to provide warning signage, which would likely have prevented the accident. Apportionment of liability was set at 70% to the first defender and 30% to the second defenders. There was no contributory negligence by the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Decree for the pursuer; liability apportioned 70% to first defender, 30% to second defenders.

Orders

  • Decree in favour of the pursuer for agreed damages.
  • Apportionment of liability: 70% first defender, 30% second defenders.