NY Court Rules Against Mandatory 'Fore Play

A little heads up would have been nice. Newsday reports that back in 2002 Dr. Azad Anand and his two friends, Dr. Anoop Kapoor and Balram Verma were playing 9 holes at the Dix Hills Golf Course, when Kapoor "shanked a shot" and hit Anand square in the left eye. He lost vision in that eye, and filed suit, claiming Kapoor neglected to yell "'Fore!" prior to taking the shot. However, it's not always required by law to do so, a state appeals court has now ruled. The court ruled 3-1 in favor of Kapoor, saying Ananad is not entitled to damages and that being hit by an errant ball is an "inherent risk of the game of golf." So if you have any pals with bad aim (or trying out the Happy Gilmore tee shot), maybe invest in some golf goggles (which probably don't exist).

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Carlson in News on April 29, 2009 3:59 PM

Comments [rss]

jt10000

Even if he's suing an insurance company, it's still disturbing. This sort of thing leads to increased premiums by sports facilities and less access to sports and recreation. It's a bad thing.

tsol

Ananad will get nothing and like it!

j. matty

Actually, high-end sports sunglasses are often ANSI-certified as safety goggles, so golf goggles are unnecessary.

True story: a guy gets hit in the eye with a golf ball while wearing a pair of Oakley shades. (A golf ball in flight can travel upwards of 100mph.) It knocks him out, they rush him to the hospital where a doctor tells him the glasses saved his eye and possibly his life. I know because he worked for Oakley, and he brought the lens to a sunglass store I worked at. If you breathed on it to fog it up, you could still see the dimples from the golf ball.

The Edge

Most are rated to handle impact from a .22LR

The Edge

Most are rated to handle impact from a .22LR

babyhitler

I don't understand this ruling. Suppose you were in a parking lot and not on the golf course when a ball hit you in the eye. Wouldn't that be grounds for a suit? Is the ruling that only if you play golf on a golf course? cause that still doesn't make any sense either. Dude lost his eye!!!!

jaycjay

What you clearly mean if you can't see the distinction between being on the golf course and being in a parking lot is that you don't understand, somehow, the reporting on the ruling, not that you don't understand the ruling.

Here, all of your silly questions can be easily answered:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03110.htm

jt10000

It's disturbing to have lawsuits intrude into the normal risks of sport.

non_sequitur

Disturbing? He's (very likely) suing an insurance company, not the person... so unless if you're an insurance agent I don't really see what's to get all worked up about.

If anything, it's disturbing that this guy got hit in the eye and now is going to have to live with that for the rest of his life. It's not like that's a minor injury, even if the court is right on the law.

jaycjay

Most likely an insurance company would have ended up paying, but the way that happens is that the injured person sues the insured person -- not that person's insurance company. Under the terms of the coverage, the insurance company then provides or assists in the defense.

But if the judgment is for more than is covered, the individual sued is personally liable for what the insurance company doesn't cover. If the insurance company finds a way to get out of paying, the defendant is still liable for the whole amount.

Dr. Kapoor was the defendant in this case (Anand v. Kapoor), his insurance carrier was not.

non_sequitur

Gee whiz, you think?

jaycjay

Since they were playing as part of a threesome, he'd obviously know that the third guy still hadn't teed off. It's not the same as when one party is down the fairway and another comes to the tee. Obviously yelling "fore" wouldn't have made a difference.