FGMC - Q2 2016 Newsletter

Several weeks ago our firm was one of the many sponsors of a golf tournament that benefits the Rocky Mountain Down Syndrome Association. We are proud of our firm's involvement with this extraordinary organization, as well as the hard work of our colleague Lindsay Richardson, who is an active board member. After this tournament my partner was asked by some friends to take on a "challenging" legal issue - one that perhaps has more importance for his typical foursome, based on the quality of their play: what happens if you hit a really bad golf shot and hit someone in the eye? I had never given this much thought, which is crazy because I am not a good golfer and our firm handles a lot of litigation. So upon his return from the course we hit the books.

Surprisingly, the Colorado Court of Appeals has actually addressed this issue in a case (almost 40 years ago). The dispute involved a spectator at a golf tournament who was hit in the eye by an errant shot. The spectator was forty-five feet from the targeted green, behind some trees and in a designated spectator area. After hitting the bad shot, the golfer (and other members of his foursome) yelled "fore" loudly several times. It didn't help. The spectator was hit and, of course, filed a lawsuit.

You might expect that the golfer would be liable for hitting a shot that bad. However, in this case, the golfer was not liable to the injured spectator. Instead, the court found that golfers and spectators know many shots go astray from the intended line of flight - a risk all such persons must accept. Unless there is evidence that the golfer was negligent hitting the ball or giving a warning when the shot went bad, the golfer isn't liable. In fact, because the spectator was so far away (as the court explained, not in the "foreseeable ambit of danger"), the golfer who hit the shot did not have a duty to yell "fore" and try to warn her. In Colorado, if you're outside the zone of danger or if you aware of the impending shot, you are not entitled to any warning.

So how bad does a golf shot need be before the golfer is negligent and liable for knocking out someone's eye? Well, it's not the quality of the shot (or lack thereof) that matters. While considering evidence of a golfer's negligence, another court (this one in Kansas - fortunately there isn't that much reported golf litigation in Colorado) found there was no evidence that a golfer was negligent because (1) the golfer played a dozen of times a year, (2) had professional training, (3) constantly practiced, (4) had not consumed any alcohol prior to the time he hit his fateful tee shot, (5) had a smooth consistent swing, (6) knew how to properly hold the club, (7) hit tee shots on the previous seventeen holes that were straight down the fairway with no hook and only an occasional fade to the right, (8) took the same amount of time and preparation on the 18th tee as he did on the 17 previous tee shots, and (9) did nothing different or unusual on the 18th tee. The Kansas golfer had a pretty impressive resume of reasonable golf care. Unfortunately I could not (as Danny Foster could attest) have met any of those criteria.

The lesson in all of this is that you should play golf more often, but drink less when you do. If however, you happen to drill someone in the eye, hope that they are inside the "foreseeable ambit of danger" - a term which has all the clarity of the water in Cherry Creek Reservoir.

While I can't say our firm's foursome walked away with any of the prizes from this charity event, none of them are being sued due to their bad golfing, and it was a wonderful way to support a most deserving charity that could desperately use our help. I urge you to go to http://www.rmdsa.org/ to donate to this worthwhile cause.

Warmly,

Bob G. Graham,
Partner

FGMC Briefs

* Protecting the Owner and the Project - Presentation

On June 8 ^th , Michelle Berger presented a continuing education program entitled "Protecting the Owner and the Project: Insurance and Bonding Issues in Construction" to a group of architects, engineers and owner's representatives.

* High School Boot Camp

On June 6th and 7th Danny Foster, Lara Baker and Lindsay Richardson presented to over 150 parents and students on the risks and dangers associated with starting High School.

Please read summary below.

* FGMC Would like to Welcome

Andrea Vella to the Firm

Andrea Vella joined the firm this spring. Andrea's practice focuses on corporate matters, mergers/acquisitions, and banking/finance.

* Mackrell International Conference

Danny Foster, David Foster, Bob Graham, Michael Milstein and Dan Calisher were firm delegates this April at the Mackrell International http://www.Mackrell.net conference in Hong Kong. Mackrell is an international organization of independent law firms. Now that "Brexit" is upon us if your business needs assistance throughout Europe our international legal network can assist. Feel free to contact Danny Foster for more information.

Risk Busters: Insurance Coverages for Construction Projects

By Michelle L. Berger

Summer is officially here and with the ensuing ramp up in construction projects comes the inevitable increase in exposure to risk for everyone involved in a project, including Owners, Developers, General Contractors ("GC's"), and Subcontractors ("Subs") . The best way to manage this increased exposure to risk is to establish an insurance compliance program that ensures that everyone working on the project has the proper insurance coverage's ("Risk Busters"). Ideally, such a program should be in place prior to starting the project; and compliance with the project insurance requirements should be continually monitored throughout the life of the project, and any applicable statute of repose period.

Click here to read the full article.

Getting Ready for High School Boot Camp...Update

By Danny S. Foster

Several weeks ago our law firm hosted over 150 parents and students for two nights of discussion, education and stories about the risks and dangers associated with going to high school. We were overwhelmed with the response and the interesting comments and questions of our participants. Over the course of two hours my colleagues Lara Baker, Lindsay Richardson and myself discussed the rising use of marijuana by high schoolers and they all were able to see for themselves what edibles look like and they learned how dangerous they can be.

Click here to read the full article.