Injury Caused by Another Player’s Ball at a Screen Golf Facility: Who Is Liable for Compensation?

[Financial News] If a member’s shot at a screen golf practice facility bounces off the screen and injures another customer, who should cover the medical expenses?
The court determined that such an accident was foreseeable and ruled that both the facility operator and the insurance company must jointly pay for medical costs and compensation for pain and suffering.
On the 6th, the Jeonju District Court, Civil Division 4 (Presiding Judge Lee Yong-hee) announced a partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a damages lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the golf facility and the insurance company.
The court ordered the golf facility and the insurer to pay Mr. A 13.7 million won in compensation.
The incident occurred on September 30, 2022, at a screen golf practice facility in Wansan-gu, Jeonju, North Jeolla Province.
At the time, Mr. A had just finished his swing and was stretching out his arms when another member in the booth directly behind him hit a ball.
The ball struck the screen, bounced forward, and unfortunately hit Mr. A’s finger directly.
As a result, Mr. A suffered a fractured finger and required nearly a month of outpatient treatment.
He filed a damages lawsuit against the facility, claiming the accident was caused by inadequate safety measures, and sought approximately 41 million won in compensation.
After reviewing the case, the court found Mr. A’s claims reasonable and ruled in his favor.
However, the court significantly reduced the compensation amount, taking into account Mr. A’s degree of responsibility and the extent of his injuries.
The court pointed out, "Given the nature of screen golf facilities, it is impossible to completely eliminate the risk of injury due to the angle or spin of a shot. Since this is a place where golf balls are repeatedly struck with force, there must be sufficient distance between the tee box and the screen when constructing the facility."
The court added, "The Act on the Installation and Use of Sports Facilities requires a minimum distance of 2.5 meters between booths in indoor golf facilities, but the accident site only had 2.45 meters. In light of this, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant, as the facility manager, was negligent in this regard."
Regarding the adjustment of the compensation amount, the court explained, "At the time of the accident, the golf ball bounced out at a relatively slow speed, so if the plaintiff had been more attentive, he might have avoided the shot or reduced the severity of the injury. The compensation was determined by considering the location of the injury, the degree of residual disability, and the circumstances of the incident as a whole."


jjw@fnnews.com Jung Ji-woo Reporter