Court: "Park Tae-hwan Not Liable for 'Caddy Injury' but Deserves Criticism"

Court: "Duty of slice caution lies with the caddie"
After the accident, the companion swapped the perpetrator

Former national swimming athlete Park Tae-hwan (35) was sued for damages after injuring a golfer in the adjacent hole while playing golf three years ago, but the court ruled that Park is not liable for compensation.

On the 29th, the Chosun Ilbo reported that Judge Shin Sung-wook of the Civil Division 4 at the Seoul Eastern District Court ruled in favor of the defendant in the damages claim lawsuit filed by Mr. A, who was injured by a golf ball hit by Park.

Former National Swimming Team Member Park Tae-hwan
[Photo by Park Tae-hwan, Instagram capture]

In November 2021, Park hit a tee shot with a driver at a golf course in Chuncheon, Gangwon Province, but the ball sliced (curved sharply to the right instead of flying toward the target) and struck the upper left eye of Mr. A, who was playing golf in the adjacent hole. Although Mr. A received treatment, he suffered aftereffects including reduced vision and a narrowed field of view.

Earlier, Mr. A filed a criminal complaint against Park for negligent injury. However, in April, the Seoul High Court dismissed Mr. A’s request for a judicial review. A judicial review is a system where a complainant who disagrees with the prosecution’s decision not to indict requests the court to decide whether to proceed with prosecution. If the court accepts the review, the prosecution must file charges.

The police determined that Park’s actions did not constitute negligence causing injury and dismissed the case. Dissatisfied with this, Mr. A filed an objection, and the case was transferred to the Chuncheon District Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecution judged that it was difficult to hold Park accountable, citing that Park hit the ball following the caddie’s instructions and that slices are not uncommon in amateur games, and thus decided not to prosecute Park. Mr. A appealed the prosecution’s non-indictment decision but was dismissed in November last year. He then filed a judicial review, but the court’s ruling aligned with the prosecution and police.

Judge Shin stated, “Park hit the ball following the caddie’s instructions without any awareness that someone might be in the direction of the shot,” and added, “The duty of care to prevent the ball from crossing into another hole when a slice, common among amateur golfers, occurs lies with the golf course management company and the caddie.” He pointed out that caddies should have communicated with each other to prevent accidents or that the golf course should have installed nets.

However, it was later revealed that Park responded inappropriately immediately after the accident. He concealed his personal information and shifted responsibility to another person. Regarding this, Judge Shin criticized, “It is morally blameworthy that Park hid his personal information after the accident and blamed a companion who played golf with him as the person responsible,” but explained, “This is a circumstance after the accident and is unrelated to liability for compensation.”