Safety on Golf Driving Ranges

Safety on Golf Driving Ranges: A Legal Perspective for Solicitors

Golf driving ranges are generally perceived as low-risk leisure environments. Unlike many contact sports, there should be no deliberate physical interaction between participants.

It must be recognised that most facilities are open to golfers of widely varying abilities from novices who may never have hit a golf ball before through to professional golfers.

I am convinced that the combination of high-velocity golf balls, powerful clubs, uneven surfaces and inexperienced users can create significant risks.

The principal risks

The most obvious hazard is the golf ball itself. 

A golf ball struck by a driver can travel at considerable speed, and even a relatively short-range mishit can cause serious injury. 

Risks include balls being struck from adjacent bays, rebounds from protective structures, balls escaping the designated hitting area and golfers entering areas where balls are being collected.

A golfer may be injured by:

• another person's golf club during a backswing or practice swing;

• defective or poorly maintained mats, flooring or artificial surfaces;

• trip hazards around the hitting bays;

• inadequate separation between neighbouring users;

• poorly positioned equipment or furniture;

• inadequate lighting or visibility;

• slippery surfaces, particularly in wet weather;

• Hitting a golf ball which rebounds from a surface in front of a tee and injuries the player of a nearby person

• Entering the outfield and being hit by the ball of another player

What specific other risks are common on multi storey ranges?

• Slip and falls on steps and slippery surfaces

• Falls from the front of bays

• Inattention to position within the bays

• Bad behaviour amongst groups of golfers.

What specific other risks are common on ranges with water as an outfield

• Drowning

• Searching for balls in the waterbody

• Badly designed waterbody making exit from the water difficult

• Allowing children on the range

• Difficulty in netting the outfield

Contributory factors to accidents may include

• Lack of supervision

• Failure to adequately protect the outfield boundaries to stop balls existing the outfield on to property belonging or used by others

• Failure to provide adequate safety information

• Failure to provide instruction information

• Failure to inform players of risks

• Balls leaving the outfield and damaging property outside the range outfield

• Purposely hitting balls out of the outfield

• Players taking risks whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol

• Moving driving mats into unsafe locations

• Unsafe design which fails to stop any ball hit from exiting the bay on to the outfield.

• Failure to comply with design guidance

• Failure to maintain safety installations correctly

The risk profile will depend heavily on the design and operation of the particular facility.

Risks to maintenance and operational staff

Staff working is such locations will be subject to a different set of risks including

• Working a heights

• Operation of complex machinery

• Being harmed whilst working on an operational outfield.

• Harmed by guests

Risks associated with back of house operation can become numerous depending on the facility.

It is vital that when employing more than 5 staff a range operator is fully aware of the need to have a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, to review the assessment regularly and to ensure that staff are properly trained.

Duty of care and occupiers' liability

For solicitors considering a claim, the starting point will ordinarily be the operator's legal responsibilities towards people using the premises.

In England and Wales, the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 provides the principal statutory framework concerning the duty owed by occupiers to lawful visitors. The duty is, broadly, to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that visitors are reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be on the premises.

That does not mean that an operator is an insurer of every visitor's safety. Golf is inherently capable of involving foreseeable risks, and an operator will not necessarily be liable merely because an accident has occurred.

The important question is whether reasonable precautions were taken against risks that the operator knew, or ought reasonably to have known, existed.

Is Foreseeability important?

Driving-range operators should be expected to anticipate the ordinary consequences of inexperienced or careless users.

For example, it may be foreseeable that a novice golfer will:

• stand too close to another golfer;

• perform a practice swing without appreciating the danger;

• strike a ball outside the intended direction;

• enter an area that should be restricted;

• misunderstand signage or instructions;

• use unsuitable equipment.

A solicitor assessing liability should therefore look beyond whether the claimant personally behaved sensibly. The relevant issue may be whether the operator's systems were sufficiently robust to deal with predictable human error.

This can make the facility's layout and operating procedures particularly important.

Warnings and instructions

Clear signage can form an important part of a reasonable safety system, particularly where risks cannot be eliminated.

Warnings might cover matters such as keeping within designated areas, maintaining a safe distance from other golfers, not entering restricted areas and following staff instructions.

Any warning may be ineffective if it is obscure, poorly positioned, ambiguous or contradicted by the way the facility is actually operated.

Supervision and inexperienced golfers

The range of ability levels creates an obvious difference in the level of supervision that may reasonably be required.

Where a facility provides lessons, children's sessions, group activities or supervised experiences, the operator may need to consider additional precautions.

Particular attention may be appropriate where children or vulnerable visitors are involved. Staff training, supervision ratios, induction procedures and the suitability of equipment may all become relevant.

A claimant who was using the facility for the first time may have had very little understanding of the potential dangers. Evidence concerning what they were told before using the range can therefore be important.

Where CCTV is involved, it’s presence does not absolve the operator of their duty of care. Again, from experience, CCTV monitors are often not monitored full time and with no supervision, improper or unsafe use of the bays cannot be stopped by staff before an accident occurs.

Risk assessments and safety systems

A professionally operated driving range should have appropriate systems for identifying and controlling foreseeable risks. The Management of Health and safety at Work Regulations 1999 set out the requirements.

Following an accident, solicitors may wish to investigate:

1. the relevant risk assessments;

2. health and safety policies;

3. staff training records;

4. inspection and maintenance records;

5. accident and incident reports;

6. customer instructions and signage;

7. CCTV footage;

8. photographs of the accident location;

9. records of previous similar incidents or complaints;

10. any relevant manufacturer's instructions.

These documents can help establish what the operator knew about the risk and what precautions were considered reasonable.

Evidence following an accident

Golf-range accidents can be particularly difficult to investigate after the event because the physical circumstances may change quickly.

CCTV footage should be preserved where available. Photographs should ideally capture the entire relevant area rather than simply the immediate point of impact. Witness evidence should be obtained promptly from golfers using neighbouring bays and on duty staff.

It may also be important to establish:

• the claimant's exact position;

• the position of the other golfer;

• the direction of the shot;

• the type of club used;

• whether the ball was hit deliberately or during a practice swing;

• whether rebounds were possible because of the design of the hitting bay

• whether protective netting or barriers were present;

• what instructions had been given;

• whether staff were supervising the area;

• weather and lighting conditions;

• the condition of the relevant surfaces and equipment.

The distinction between an unfortunate accident and a preventable accident will often depend on this detail.

Contributory negligence

Even where an operator has breached its duty, the claimant's own conduct may be relevant.

The claimant may have ignored clear instructions, entered a restricted area, failed to pay attention to an obvious warning or behaved in an unsafe manner.

That does not necessarily defeat a claim. Instead, the conduct may give rise to an argument concerning contributory negligence, with any reduction depending on the circumstances.

Equally, operators should be cautious about relying too heavily on general statements such as "golf is dangerous". Acceptance of the ordinary risks associated with playing golf does not necessarily amount to acceptance of every risk created by inadequate premises, defective equipment or poor safety management.

Practical advice for operators

For driving-range operators, prevention is likely to be considerably more effective than defending an avoidable claim after an accident.

A sensible safety strategy should include regular review of risk assessments, inspection of protective structures, maintenance of equipment, appropriate staff training and clear customer instructions.

Operators should also treat incidents and near misses as useful safety information. A near miss involving an escaped ball, for example, may reveal a weakness in the facility before someone is seriously injured.

As ranges become more and more entertainment based, other risk appear when facilities such as shops, indoor putting greens, golf simulators, shops, toilets, food and beverage outlets, kitchens, stores, staff facilities, classrooms are all added to basic driving ranges.  

Ensure there are emergency plans in place and that trained staff are always on duty. 

Conclusion

Driving ranges present a distinctive combination of recreational activity and potentially significant physical hazards. The fact that golf is a familiar and generally safe sport does not remove the need for operators to identify and manage foreseeable risks.

For solicitors, the central questions following an accident are likely to include what happened, what risks were foreseeable, what the operator knew or ought to have known, what precautions were in place and whether those precautions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Careful investigation of the physical environment, operating procedures, maintenance records, warnings, staff conduct and claimant's own actions will often be essential to determining where responsibility lies.

For operators, the lesson is equally straightforward: a well-designed driving range, properly maintained safety equipment, effective supervision and clear instructions are not merely good practice. They may be crucial evidence that reasonable steps were taken to protect visitors from foreseeable harm.