By Natalie Bird, Ph.D.
Being struck by a golf ball is not uncommon in the game of golf, even if not on the golf course. It is also not unusual for a vehicle near a golf facility to be damaged by a player’s wayward shot. However, it is both uncommon and unusual to be injured by a golf ball flying through a vehicle window while driving next to a golf course. This rare scenario describes the experience of Evelyn Mohr, a Vancouver woman injured after being struck by a golf ball that flew through her car window as she drove by Victoria Golf Club in Oak Bay, B.C. in June of 2023. Mohr has experienced serious eye and face injuries, psychological trauma, and financial stress resulting from the incident. Media outlets have reported she is suing the District of Oak Bay and Victoria Golf Club claiming negligent design, failure to warn, and failure to take reasonable care in preventing injuries. She is also suing golfer Kane Watt, claiming negligent and reckless behavior.
This case hinges on a variety of details that are not publicly available currently. Golf ball-related lawsuits typically focus on proving negligence, and this situation is no exception. However, answers to three questions will greatly impact the outcome of this case:
- Did the course do their job?
- Was Watt acting recklessly?
- How familiar is Mohr with the area of the incident?
Question 1: Did the course do their job?
Despite Mohr’s claim Victoria Golf Club failed to take reasonable care to protect from errant golf balls, the course has implemented measures to lessen threats of injury and property damage. According to their website, the course has had three different redesigns over the years. The last renovation took place in the mid-1920’s “to end the practice of hitting tee shots on two holes across the ever-busier Beach Drive” (Victoria Golf Club, 2024, para. 3). The course has signage that reads “caution errant golf balls” and “park at your own risk” posted along the sidewalk near the course (Hainsworth, 2024, para. 15). The significance of the redesigns focused on Beach Drive and the signage locations are unclear. The course’s effort to eliminate risks is shown through these actions, but their application to this scenario may prove irrelevant.
Question 2: Was Watt acting recklessly?
Hitting a shot offline in and of itself is not considered negligent nor reckless. In many errant golf ball-related lawsuits liability is determined by a golfer’s “zone of risk” which essentially means the foreseeable area around a player’s intended path and their general trend in golf shots. Each player’s zone of risk is unique, and a player’s experience and skill level are the most accurate predictors determining a zone of risk. Generally, a highly-skilled experienced golfer will have a significantly smaller margin of error—and smaller zone of risk—compared to a less-skilled inexperienced player. Watt’s skill level, experience, and knowledge of the golf course are unclear. Some news outlets have reported Watt was a member of the golf course at the time of the incident. However, membership does not equal liability, nor does it forecast experience or skill level. The relative proximity and visibility between Mohr and Watt and whether Watt yelled “fore” are also very important details missing. Other factors such as alcohol consumption, Watt’s demeanor, and an intent to act recklessly are also unknown.
Question 3: How familiar is Mohr with the area of the incident?
In McGuire v. New Orleans City Park Improvement Association (2003)a man jogging next to the course was hit in the groin by an errant golf ball. He claimed the course was responsible because they did not adequately warn patrons of the risk. Ultimately, the court ruled the course was not responsible. One of the deciding factors was that McGuire was from the area and familiar with the threat of golf balls in the area. Despite being noted as a Vancouver resident, Mohr’s history with the area is not described in the media.
Answers to these questions may decide Mohr’s next step in seeking the justice she believes she is owed, or conversely provide evidence the District of Oak Bay, Victoria Golf Club, and Kane Watt are not liable. It will be interesting to see this story unfold if more information is released. This could be a simple “wrong place at the wrong time” situation with no further legal action or a lawsuit that serves as precedent for years to come.
References
Hainsworth, J. (2024, March 6). Woman sues Victoria Golf Club, saying ball flew through car window and hit her face. Times Colonist. https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/woman-sues-victoria-golf-club-saying-ball-flew-through-car-window-and-hit-her-face-8399661?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
McGuire v. New Orleans City P. Imp. A., 835 So. 2d 416 (La. 2003)
Victoria Golf Club (2024) The clubhouse. https://www.victoriagolf.com/web/pages/the-clubhouse
Natalie Bird, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at Pittsburg State University in Pittsburg, Kansas. She teaches law and hospitality courses in the Health, Human Performance and Recreation Department and possesses over fifteen years of golf industry experience. Her research area is risk management and legal issues pertaining to the golf industry.
