Supreme Court Frowns Upon Impromptu 'Happy Gilmore' Tee Shots

This is surprising: a guy has a few pops at a bachelor party golf outing, decides to "Happy Gilmore" his tee shot, and ends up hitting his playing partner. Never would have guessed.

The Legal Watch Blog writes that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia is now involved. After 15 holes of golf that included "dozens of beers, a bottle of tequila, several marijuana joints smoked 'before the third hole, 'power slides' in the golf carts and clubs smashed against trees," things somehow got worse.

All of this action was a mere warm-up to the 16th hole, however, when the defendant hit his first shot into the woods, took a mulligan second shot, and then decided to take one more shot "Happy Gilmore"-style despite the fact that the other players had moved ahead with their carts up the fairway.

The court says the defendant stepped back five or six feet from the ball and then took two full steps up to strike the ball, which went off the heel of the club directly at the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff did not seek medical attention before the wedding, he later alleged "significant daily left hand and wrist pain" to the point that he "is unable to grip to hold his chain saw," and therefore was "completely disabled from doing his work."

In another shocking development, the court agreed with the plaintiff:

Having taken his tee shot, and then a provisional second shot, he was, or ought to have been, aware that the players ahead of him believed he was finished at the tee. He did not give any indication that he was taking a third shot -- let alone a "Happy Gilmore" shot -- until he was in the process of doing so. I am convinced that the "Happy Gilmore" shot would have been less controllable than a normal tee shot, both because it involved a run-up to the ball (rather than an aimed shot from a stationary position) and because the defendant had been drinking throughout the day...

The defendant's conduct breached the standard of care required of a golfer playing on a course with other golfers. The defendant's behaviour was not among the "natural risks" of golfing to which the plaintiff can be said to have consented.

Pretty sure you don't even need to call an expert witness to come to this conclusion. It's one thing for Padraig Harrington to pull it off (see below). It's something entirely different for Drunk Joe With the Unmanageable Slice Under Ideal Conditions to think it might be a swell idea.



Via The Sporting Blog