Comments on: February 18 roundup

By: David Townsend

David Townsend — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:58:54 +0000

I do have a query about these cases which someone might be able to help me with. I note that the golf case occurred in September 2006. Why has it taken him two and a half years to realise that he was blinded?
Why does it take so long to file an action in these incidents?

By: John

John — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:44:56 +0000

I’m sure most people would agree that the case is defensible. The sad fact is that the golf course has to defend it at all. No matter if the judge throws it out or it goes to a defense verdict, money has to be spent to show that Mr. Sanchez should take some responsibility for his own actions. That is the unconscionable part of this whole scenario.

By: John Hochfelder

John Hochfelder — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:19:50 +0000

This case is even more defensible than the Florida case. As I mentioned in my blog post on that case, there were some facts favorable to the plaintiff there (e.g., expert testimony that a rope divider would have avoided the driving range injury) and sympathy (plaintiff also developed cancer) that led to a settlement. The New Hampshire case, involving an on course injury, will be tossed by the judge. If plaintiff there gets to a jury, they will return a defense verdict. Look at the comments (must be 100 or so) to the Manchester Union-Leader article. Mr. Sanchez had best hope they are not representative of his jury pool.

By: PhilG

PhilG — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:12:31 +0000

Why aren’t these golfballs that are being deflected back and hitting the golfers not being tested for lead content? Surely their lawyers are missing a further cause of action there. Someone call the CPSC.