Reparation actions against golf clubs (or golfers) seem to be occurring with increasing regularity in recent years. In 2014, there were the cases of Phee v Gordon  CSIH 18, which concerned a golfer struck by a golf ball hit by another player, as well as McMahon v Dear  CSOH 100, which related to an injury sustained by a “ball spotter” during a golfing tournament. In 2016 two further golf-related cases are worthy of mention, one concerning product liability and the other personal injury.
In the first of the two cases, Renfrew Golf Club v Motocaddy Ltd  CSIH 57, a Renfrewshire golf club (the pursuers) sued the importers and suppliers of a motorised golf trolley (the defenders). One of the pursuers’ members had purchased one of the defenders’ trolleys, which after use he had left at the entrance to the changing rooms in the clubhouse. In the early hours of the following day, a fire occurred at the clubhouse, causing approximately £500,000 of damage. The pursuers alleged that the fire was caused by wear and tear to the unprotected cabling in the trolley, which in exposing the wiring had caused a short circuit which led to the fire. The pursuers claimed that this amounted to a product defect present at the point of supply, as the design did not include adequate protection against electrical faults.
The pursuers claimed:
(1) that the defenders were in breach of a common law duty of care owed to them by the defenders, and (2) that the defenders were liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (which provides for strict liability in respect of defective products). The defenders claimed that no duty of care was owed at common law, and that statutory liability was excluded by virtue of section 5(3) of the 1987 Act, which provided that
“A person shall not be liable … for any loss or damage to any property which, at the time it is lost or damaged, is not —
(a) of a description of property ordinarily intended for private use, occupation or consumption; and
(b) intended by the person suffering the loss or damage mainly for his own private use, occupation or consumption.”
The defenders argued that the clubhouse was not property ordinarily intended for “private use”.
At first instance, the judge held (1) that there was insufficient proximity between the parties to found a duty of care at common law, and that it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty, and (2) that a clubhouse which was used by over 700 members and by others was not property “ordinarily intended for private use”. He therefore held the defenders not to be liable under the 1987 Act for the damage caused.
On appeal, the appeal court affirmed the decision at first instance. As regards the common law duty of care, there was no proximity between a supplier of a golf trolley and the owner of a clubhouse in which the trolley happened to be, three years after the supply, and over which the supplier had no control. Whether or not its location at a clubhouse was foreseeable, it might foreseeably have been placed in any number of locations, to each of which it might cause indeterminate damage were it to catch fire. Furthermore, given the regime of the 1987 Act, and the fact that a contract of sale had governed the purchase of the trolley, there was little room for the common law of delict to be extended to a new situation such as the present, where the legislature had declined to act.
As regards the case under the product liability regime of the 1987 Act, the clubhouse was not property ordinarily intended for private use: the underlying idea behind this regime was that, whereas there should be liability for damage to property used in a person’s private life, notably, but not exclusively, in a domestic setting and whether that person was a consumer of the product or not, that liability should not extend to property used by what might loosely be described as economic entities (whether private or not). The pursuers were an economic operation, albeit that they were a “private club”. For these reasons, the case under the 1987 Act was irrelevant.
The judgment is of interest both for what it says about liability under the 1987 Act is concerned, as well as for its observations on the continuing availability of common law, Donoghue v Stevenson, delictual liability for defective products. As regards the meaning of “private use” property under section 5(3) of the 1987 Act, the court in considering what meaning should be attributed to this idea looked at the underlying intention of the EU product liability directive upon which the 1987 Act is based. The court considered that this background suggests that what is important is whether or not the property is used for individual/family/small group of friends’ use as opposed to communal use, based upon financial considerations, by a large number of members of the public. The concern thus seems to be both with the size of the group which might use the property as well as the relationship of that group to the owner. That might well produce a sensible answer in most cases, but one wonders what would view would be taken if the two considerations came into conflict, i.e. what if only one person at a time used the property but such persons had no personal connection to the owner (but used the property in return for payment)? The answer, one suspects, would be that such use would also not be “private use”, the presence of a hire charge being determinative of a commercial rather than a private use. In any event, the approach taken by the appeal bench to this question seems a robust and sensible one.
The second point of interest in the case relates to the extent to which use can be made of common law liability for defective products in cases where (i) a contract for the purchase of the product existed between consumer and supplier and (ii) liability might conceivably exist under the 1987 Act if the necessary requirements for such liability are fulfilled. The 1987 Act does not purport to replace the common law, Donoghue v Stevenson liability for defective products, so in theory a claim might be made under either form of liability. Nor does the presence of a contract necessarily exclude the possibility of delictual liability. The appeal court bench however cites the prior comment of Lord Rodger in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council that
“Where the position of the parties is regulated … by a mixture of contract and statute prima facie there is little room for the common law of delict to impose a duty of car …”
in order to suggest that the combined presence of such features mitigates against the creation of a duty of care at common law, adding that “it would no doubt be difficult for the defenders to obtain limitless product liability insurance, whereas the pursuers … could have insured the premises with reasonable ease”.
The decision of the appeal bench negating a common law duty of care is worthy of analysis. The focus of the bench on the question of the proximity of the pursuers and defenders is noteworthy: traditionally, in cases involving personal injury or damage to property, courts have not stressed proximity as a separate requirement, inferring it from foreseeability of harm (and in this case the type of harm and the mechanism by which it was caused appear to have been reasonably foreseeable). But this was not a classic case of harm caused to a consumer of products: the damage in this case was caused to the premises in which the consumer had left the product, owned by a different party. The concern appears to have been that the claim was being made by a peripheral party, one who fell within an indeterminate class of potential claimants.
The court noted that there was scant prior authority dealing with a similar sort of case: the court mentions only two mid-twentieth century cases that were cited to it. The court states that these two cases cannot be used as a springboard for extending liability of suppliers of defective products for damage caused to property “anywhere that the product might have been left by third parties”. However, the first of these two cases (Stennett v Hancock & Peters)  2 All ER 578 bears some resemblance to the facts of this case, in that a repairer of a motor vehicle was held liable to a member of the public when the repaired part came loose and struck the member of the public. Liability was founded on Donoghue v Stevenson, and the judge did not trouble himself with the worry that anyone might conceivably have been injured by the defective repair (compare the concern of the appeal bench in this case that the injury might be caused to any number of premises). Stennett has been founded on in subsequent cases, so it cannot be dismissed as an isolated authority or as a novel case. Given this, it might be argued that the dismissal by the appeal court of a common law claim on the basis that a finding of liability would amount to a “substantial increase in existing known fields of liability” was somewhat peremptory.
The second case from 2016 was the Outer House judgment in Taylor v Quigley and others  CSOH 178. In this action, the pursuer, who was a member of the Colville Park Golf Club, sustained serious injuries to his leg when he stepped on a manhole cover between the clubhouse and the first tee, falling partly into the manhole. The pursuer raised an action of damages against eight named members of the Executive Committee of the golf club (the first to eighth defenders) and Tata Steel (UK) Ltd (the ninth defender), who owned the land in question and had appointed the second defender (the club secretary). The defenders challenged the relevancy of the action, claiming that the eight committee members could not be liable to the pursuer in a personal capacity and that the case against the ninth defender was irrelevant.
The judge (Lord Uist) held that (1) the pursuer could not sue any of the first eight defenders in their capacity as members of the club or of its Executive Board. There was a rule against members of a club suing each other for injury allegedly arising in the course of membership, since there was no distinction between the members and the pursuer would in effect be suing himself, but this rule did not afford a defence if a duty of care had arisen independently of membership; (2) On the face of it the pursuer was suing the first to eighth defenders as members of the club: if they had not been members of the Executive Board they would not have been sued. In order to plead a relevant case, therefore, he had to make sufficient averments that they owed him a duty of care independently of their membership; (3) As the pursuer had failed to aver any relevant basis for such an independent duty of care, his case against the first eight defenders was irrelevant and had to be dismissed; (4) As regards the ninth defender, they were sued only on the basis that they were vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the club secretary. As the club secretary owed no duty of care to the pursuer, it followed that the ninth defenders could not be held vicariously liable for his acts or omissions. A principal could not be liable to a third party for the negligence of his agent if the agent owed no duty to that third party. The case against the ninth defender was therefore also dismissed.
The case is of interest for its discussion of the liability of committee members of unincorporated associations to fellow members of their club. Unincorporated associations (golf clubs often fall into this legal category) have no separate legal personality: they are merely the collection of individual members who at any one time make up the membership of the association. This judgment reaffirms the view that club members cannot sue committee members of the club in their representative capacity, because that capacity means that they represent all of the members, including the member who wishes to sue. The logic of this is that a member who wished to sue the committee would, in effect, be trying to sue him or herself, which is not permitted.
The exception to this basic rule relates to cases where, in the words of Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (quoted by the judge):
“a duty of care has arisen independently of membership. So, the court can look to the circumstances, including the terms upon which a club officer or other servant or agent of the club has been appointed, or the club rules, to see whether some responsibility has been conferred upon that individual which caused a duty of care to arise.”
The result is that, in some cases, courts have been willing to consider committee members liable in delict/tort where a specific duty has been delegated to such member(s). So, in Grice v The Stourport Tennis, Hockey and Squash Club  EWCA Civ 1139, the English Court of Appeal thought that a possible reading of the Club rules was that responsibility had been delegated to the committee to maintain the premises and that this might give rise to a duty of care owed to individual members. It therefore permitted the plaintiff to add the relevant committee members as defendants to the action. This approach did not assist Mr Taylor in the Outer House because the judge thought that there was no evidence of any such delegated responsibility sufficient to support a duty of care owed to individual members.
Given the judge’s assessment of the factual position of the committee members in relation to individual club members, the decision seems a correct application of the law. However, there is the more fundamental question of whether the law needs to be reformed. The current legal rules leave members of unincorporated associations exposed to the hazard of injury without recourse in delict to any party owing a duty of care in respect of such injury. In 2009, the Scottish Law Commission made recommendations (thus far unimplemented in law reform) that not-for-profit unincorporated associations which have more than two members and a written constitution should have separate legal personality. Had those recommendations been implemented, Mr Taylor’s negligence claim might well have been successful. It is a pity that the Commission’s recommendations have thus far not been the subject of any Executive action.
This blogger will continue to monitor the fairways and greens of Scottish golf clubs to see whether 2017 throws up any further golf-related delictual claims.