1) Issue: Paul and Way the two major participants in the case are the members of Golf course

club. There was golf competition going on the local golf course. They both were participating
in a going competition held at the golf course on the weekend. Paul was accompanied by two
of his friends. Both Paul and Wayne were playing simultaneously on the golf course. While
playing golf, Paul hit a shot and started walking towards the ball across the fairway to hit
another shot. Paul was not knowing that Wayne was also playing golf on one part of the golf
course. While preparing to take hi shot, Wayne saw Paul Walking towards the ball. While
taking his shot, Wayne thought that Since Paul is covered by a line of trees so he would not
get hit by the ball. Wayne took his shot and somehow ball hit Paul and he got hurt. After Paul
got hit by the ball, He has decided to initiate legal proceedings against Wayne. Whether Paul
would be successful in defending his claim, it could be decided only by going through the
existing Laws.

Reference of Laws to defend or support the claim of Paul:

The above issue can be judged by citing the reference in Section 5 of Civil Liability Act 2003
(Old). According to Section 5B of Civil Liability Act 2003 (Old), a person cannot be held
responsible for causing harm to another person caused by that person if he has failed to take
necessary precautions unless the risk of harm to come upon was predictable. Although Wayne
did not take necessary precautions to prevent harm to come upon Paul. But Wayne could not
be held liable for causing harm to Paul since he could not foresee the ball hitting Paul as Paul
was covered by line of trees. Under the parameter of the above defined section, Wayne would
be held responsible causing Harm to Paul in the case that the risk to be generated was
significant. But the risk probably of hitting the ball to Paul was not significant. Hence Wayne
could not be held liable for causing harm to Paul.
Under the Section 5C of Civil Liability Act 2003 (Old), the fault of a person who has caused
the harm is comprised of the factor that the fault was a necessary condition that was initiated
by the action taken. It was not necessary that the shot taken by Wayne would result in hitting
Paul. It could have also been possible that Paul would have got covered by the line of trees.
Thus it can be concluded that Paul getting hurt was not a necessary condition resulting out of
action taken by Wayne.
Conclusion: In reference of the Section 5 of Civil Liability Act 2003 (Old), It can be seen that
Wayne cannot be solely held responsible for causing harm to Paul as per the different clauses
given in sections. Hence it can be concluded that Paul will not be successful in initiaing his
legal Proceedings against Wayne.

Reference: Section 5 of Civil Liability Act 2003 (Old), Department of Premier and Cabinet
(AU)
https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/(DownloadFiles)/Civil+Liability+Act+2002.pdf
/$file/Civil+Liability+Act+2002.pdf
2. Issue: The case expresses that Paul was hit on golf course by Wayne amidst hitting a shot
at golf session. Paul is keen on bringing legal procedures against the Golf Club. The charge
made by Paul are that the safety establishments are poor at the golf club. Had there been
legitimate safety measures introduced by the club near the pathway there would not have
been an episode like this where Paul got hurt.

Additionally the Golf club have rejected themselves from the obligation of any injury,
damage or death that happens on any the golf club premises by issuing a warning on the golf
score card. The message written on the golf card has been written in very small font and is
almost unreadable.

The accusation by Paul is that this incidence of mismanagement by the golf club welcomed
damage to any bystander through the thin pathway.

Many friends of Paul, like Peter who visit the club who visit the golf almost routinely claim
to not have seen the warning which is written on the scorecard .The case here states that the
warning on the scorecard was subsequently practically illegible to the players.

Aftermath: Paul wants to file legal proceedings against the Golf club

Relevant Laws

To comprehend the case of the golf club for this situation we need to consider the Occupier's
Act of Liability and Civil Liability Act 2003. This Occupiers liability act states about
obligation owed to the guests in the golf club by the golf club proprietors. The golf club
owners hold the obligation of providing safe conditions to the visitors in the golf club and
also to issue or display warning signals at appropriate locations wherever there is a chance of
foreseeable danger.

There are 3 criteria under which a claim put by Paul can succeed. As indicated by the
Common Liability Act 2003 and Occupiers Liability Act:

1) Breach of Duty: A breach of duty in the care of the visitors on the golf course would
mean that the golf course owner was negligible in not ensuring the safety of the visitors in the
golf club. If there is a breach in the duty of ensuring safety from the part of the golf club the
golf club shall be held responsible. But in this case the golf clubs security arrangements were
not at fault.

2) Causal Connection: Causal association between the conduct and the injury needs to be
established: A causal association implies a connection between the two components. However
the individual damage of Paul can't be corresponded to any carelessness with respect to the
golf club where he was playing

3) Foresight of the danger: A predictable nature of harm which implies that the kind of
harm or individual damage caused on Paul at the golf if in any capacity could have
been prevented if the golf club owner acted on the foresight of any danger or mischief
which could have occurred at the golf club.
Conclusion:

In conclusion it can be set up that the golf club proprietor hence holds no duty regarding this
mischance and can't be punished for it.

But it is true that the golf club should have put up warning signs on the golf course. The golf
club should also practice encouraging golfers to shout out warnings to fellow golfers in case
of a shot gone wrong
Reference: Section 5 of Civil Liability Act 2003 (Old), Department of Premier and Cabinet
(AU)
https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/(DownloadFiles)/Civil+Liability+Act+2002.pdf
/$file/Civil+Liability+Act+2002.pdf
3. Issue: Paul was member of a golf club. While participating in a competition held the golf
club, paul was hit by a shot taken by Wayne. Paul considering it a minor injury, did not seek
any medical treatment for the same. But soon it turns out that It has resulted in a permanent
injury. A medical report from specialist doctors claim that if Paul would have taken medical
attention within 48 hours of injury, Permanent injury could have been avoided. Because of the
permanent injury, Paul had to face following repercussions:
1. He had to resign early from his job as Airline Pilot
2. He had to sell his investment property at a loss of $50000

Claims: Paul believes that the Golf Club is liable to pay for the following damages incurred to
him:
1. Pauls future medical expenses in relation to his left eye
2. Pauls 10 years worth of lost income for his job as Co-Pilot
3. $50,000 loss resulting from the early sale of Pauls investment property

Awards of personal injury damages according Section 6 division A of Civil Liability act 2002
states that this part only extends to a personal injury damage if the incident happened after the
commencement of Paul hit by the golf ball. And the symptoms of eye sight loss appered after
incident of Paul being hit on the golf course.

The division 2 of Section 6 division A of Civil Liability act 2002 states talks about fixing
damages for non-pecuniary loss. The non-pecuniary loss here means here
1. Loss of enjoyment
2. Pain and suffering
3. Loss of amenities of life which Paul could have enjoyed
4. The loss of visual facilities which could have led Paul to enjoy his life

Section 6 division A of Civil Liability act 2002 states about fixing damages for pecuniary
losses: To assess the damage due to loss of earnings, we have to take into consideration fatal
accidents act of 1999. In the above the court states that the earnings lost to the extent which
would have been accumulated at a rate of 3 times the average weekly earnings at the time of
incident.
The loss of earnings as defined here means the past economic loss due to impairment of
earning capabilities and future loss of earning due to inability to earn prospective amount of
salary. For this purpose the average weekly earnings of full time adult employee has to be
taken into account

Conclusion: Assuming that Golf club is held responsible for the Damages caused to Paul and
is liable to pay for the same.

Claims Conclusion
Pauls future medical expenses in relation to Golf course will have to pay for these future
his left eye medical expenses

Pauls 10 years worth of lost income for his Paul would be reimbursed for his claims to
job as Co-Pilot the extent of accrued earnings which is upto
3 times the nations average
$50,000 loss resulting from the early sale of If Paul did not have any other source of
 Pauls investment property income other than to sale his investment
property, Golf club will have to compensate
for his loss

Reference: Civil Liability Act 2003 (Old), Department of Premier and Cabinet (AU)
https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/(DownloadFiles)/Civil+Liability+Act+2002.pdf
/$file/Civil+Liability+Act+2002.pdf