In May 2025, Golfweek reported1 that the Spanish player Jon Rahm struck a fan with a golf ball during the PGA Championship 2025. It turns out that was the third time this player had accidentally potted a spectator with a golf ball. The time before, in 2022, the injured spectator (a news anchor) was reported to have suffered facial injuries.
Although there is a wide body of case law establishing the duty of care owed by participants in sports to each other, what is the legal situation where a spectator, or an employee with duties at a match, is injured by a golf ball, football, ice hockey puck, vehicle, horse or even a player accidentally leaving the area of play? Although it may seem fair that they should be able to claim damages from the organiser of the game, or even the player, is that the correct legal analysis?
This situation has been considered several times by the courts over many decades. Unfortunately for claimants, these cases are very hard to win. The reported cases mostly come down on the side of the defendant club or arena, although it seems that golfers remain most at risk from being successfully sued.
Early Authorities
The history of claims by spectators probably starts almost 100 years ago with Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club2. Two spectators standing at the railings of a car racetrack were killed by a car that was thrown into the air after a minor collision. Although this case predated the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the common law recognised the duty of an occupier to take reasonable care to see that visitors were reasonably safe. The defendant's appeal against a finding of liability was successful. Although there was a duty on the racetrack owners to see that the course was as free from danger as reasonable care and skill could make it, they were not insurers and did not warrant absolute safety. Here, the incident was quite extraordinary and there was no history of such events happening in the past. Additionally, it was found that there was no obligation to protect against a danger incident to the entertainment which any reasonable spectator foresaw and of which he took the risk.
Lord Justice Scrutton said at [215]: What is reasonable care would depend on the perils which might be reasonably expected to occur, and the extent to which the ordinary spectator might be expected to appreciate and take the risk of such perils. Illustrations are the risk of being hit by a cricket ball at Lord's or the Oval, where any ordinary spectator in my view expects and takes the risk of a ball being hit with considerable force amongst the spectators, and does not expect any structure which will prevent any ball from reaching the spectators. An even more common case is one which may be seen all over the country every Saturday afternoon, spectators admitted for payment to a field to witness a football or hockey match, and standing along a line near the touchline. No one expects the persons receiving payment to erect such structures or nets that no spectator can be bit by a ball kicked or hit violently from the field of play towards the spectators. The field is safe to stand on, and the spectators take the risk of the game.
Hall was applied by the Court of Appeal in Murray and another v Harringay Arena LD3 where a child spectator was hit in the eye by an ice hockey puck during an ice hockey game. Although there was evidence that pucks were hit out of the arena from time to time, there was no evidence to show that a serious injury such as this had happened before. Considering the position in contract, the Court of Appeal held that there was an implied term to take reasonable care but the duty arising under it did not involve an obligation to protect against a danger incidental to the entertainment which any reasonable spectator foresaw and of which he took the risk.
A more recent ice hockey case in Northern Ireland followed similar reasoning to Murray. In Browning v Odyssey Trust Co Ltd and Belfast Giants 2008 Ltd4 Gillen J found that although Murray was decided a long time ago, the principles were still applicable. In particular, a defendant organiser, as occupier, generally had no duty to prevent exposure to risks which were inherent in activities which were freely undertaken or inherent in the sport itself, such as balls which were regularly hit with force into the spectators (at [25]).
When a player is sued
These cases involved the consideration of the situation where the claimant was a paying spectator and the defendant was the organiser of the event. However, what if the defendant is the sporting competitor or player? In Woolridge v Sumner and another5 a photographer who was at the edge of an arena at a horse show to take photographs sued the owner of a horse that ran him down. Although he won at first instance against the owner, as vicariously liable for the rider, he lost against the promoters of the show. On appeal however, the Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion. In assessing actionable blame there was a difference between an injury – for example – caused by a tennis ball hit or a racket accidentally thrown in the course of play into spectators at Wimbledon and a ball hit or a racket thrown into the stands in temper or annoyance when play was not in progress. Lord Justice Sellers said that provided the competition or game is being performed within the rules and the requirement of the sport and by a person of adequate skill and competence the spectator does not expect his safety to be regarded by the participant. Lord Justice Diplock summarised his view at [68] as: A person attending a game or competition takes the risk of any damage caused to him by any act of a participant done in the course of and for the purposes of the game or competition notwithstanding that such act may involve an error of judgment or a lapse of skill, unless the participant's conduct is such as to evince a reckless disregard of the spectator's safety.
Liability for those other than paying spectators
What about the situation where the injured claimant is not a paying spectator but working at a game when they are injured? In Woolridge above, the photographer was not an equine fan but present in his working capacity. This did not make any difference to the outcome. In the Scottish case of Gillon v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police6 the Outer House considered a claim brought by an employee injured at a football match against her employer and a football club. The claimant, a police officer, was on duty at a football match. She was standing on the track next to the pitch with her back to the game, looking up at the crowd when a player accidentally collided with her. The Court found that the risk of injury was foreseeable but due to the absence of previous incidents and the unusual combination of circumstances, the risk was so small so as to not warrant any precautions being taken by either defendant. She failed against both defendants.
In Lewis v Wandsworth County Council7 the claimant was walking along a footpath in Battersea Park, next to where a game of cricket was being played, when she was hit by a cricket ball and injured. Although she succeeded at first instance, she lost on appeal. Both the lower and appeal court were referred to Bolton v Stone8, the seminal case about foreseeability. Bolton involved a cricket ball being hit out of a cricket ground and going on to hit a pedestrian on a nearby road. The evidence was that balls being hit as far as this to go into the road were very unusual. The House of Lords said that reasonable foreseeability of an event was not enough to found liability, the further result that injury is likely to follow would also be such that a reasonable person would contemplate. Instead, the court had to consider the chances of an accident happening, the potential seriousness of an accident and the measures that could be taken to minimise the risk. The remote possibility was not enough and the existence of some risk was an ordinary incident of life, even when all due care had been taken. InLewis Mr Justice Stewart said that the case was very different to Bolton because the risk of balls being hit towards the path was so evident that no warning was needed. Statistics were important as they showed an absence of previous accidents. In the circumstances allowing pedestrians to walk along the path when a cricket match was taking place was reasonably safe, the prospects of an accident (albeit nasty if it occurred) being remote. The remoteness is reinforced by Mr Birtles' evidence as to statistics. Further and in any event the alleged breach by failure to warn the Claimant in the terms suggested does not withstand proper analysis(at [36]).
Golfing claims
Returning to golfing injuries, this is one area where claimants have been more successful, although most of such cases are where other players have been injured instead of spectators. In Horton v Jackson9 one golfer was liable to another golfer for an eye injury. The liable golfer unsuccessfully tried to appeal the finding that the golf club was not liable as well. The golf club was not liable on the basis that in 800,000 rounds of golf there had only been two accidents and screens and extra signs would have made no difference.
Golfing injuries have more recently been considered in the Scottish courts, probably due to Scotland being the golfer's paradise. In Phee v Gordon10 both a golfer and the golf club were found liable for another player's injuries when walking from a green to a tee. On appeal of the apportionment finding, the club was found 80% liable and the golfer 20% liable11. However in the later case of McMahon v Dear12 it was noted that, somewhat surprisingly, the Outer House in Phee did not cite any of the English authorities such as Murray or Hall (at [205]). In that case an official who was blinded by a golf ball lost his claim against the player. The shot was played in the normal course of play, there was no error of judgment, and the danger of being hit was a risk incidental to the competition which the claimant accepted.
Conclusion
Although there may be circumstances where the organisers of a sporting event do not take reasonable care in respect of spectators, these cases are rare, especially as safety at sports grounds is highly regulated. Liability of a player for an injury caused to a spectator requires something extra to take it out of normal play into a negligent action. Unfortunately, injured spectators, and even unwilling spectators such as the claimant in Lewis, must take the risk of the game.
Footnotes
2. [1933. 1 K.B. 205
3. [1951. 2 K.B. 529
4. [2014. NIQB 39
5. [1963. 2 Q.B. 43
6. [1997. SLT 1218
7. [2020. EWHC 3205
8. [1951. A.C. 850
9. [1950. 1 K.B. 421
10. [2011. CSOH 181
11. [2013. CSIH 18
12. [2014. CSOH 100
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
