The Hole-in-One Trial on Court TV

Great Debates
1

Did anybody else watch this? This kid (18 at the time) went to a charity golf tournament that was offering $10,000 to anyone who hit a hole-in-one on the 5th hole of the course. The money from the greens fees, as well as mulligans the players “bought” from the course for $5, were going to the charity.

So the guy, Adam Fisher, gets up on the 5th tee and hits a terrible shot. So he takes one of the mulligans he had purchased (well, his team had purchased it, because this was team-play), and sure enough hits a hole-in-one on his “second” shot.

So of course the insurance company covering the $10,000 says “No way, buddy boy. That was your second shot, not your first. A hole-in-two.”

From courttv.com :

"On cross-examination, Bradley Skinner highlighted the fact that Fisher personally hadn’t paid his entry fee, did not lay out the $20 for his team’s four mulligans, and that a hole-in-one is typically accomplished without using a mulligan. Skinner stressed that for Fisher to prevail in the case he has to prove there was a contractual agreement between Fisher and the tournament that he could use a mulligan to win prizes.

“It doesn’t say [on the sign] ‘Hole-in-two wins a $10,000 prize,’ does it?” Skinner asked.

“No,” Fisher conceded."

But Fisher contends that the sign advertising the contest stated “Unlimited mulligans!”, and read that to mean you could use an many as you wanted to make the hole-in-one. But of course the tournament officials said that that only applied to players’ overall scores, not for the $10,000 prize.

The kid seemed like a decent guy… only 18 years old, and wanted the money to pay for his first year of college. I watched this trial all day and the damn thing was settled just before jury deliberation!

So I ask you, Number 1: What do you think the private settlement was for, and Number 2: If you were on the jury what would you have voted?

More information about the case can be found here, here, and here .

2

I’d side with the kid and pay him $10,00 plus court costs. The “hole in two” argument is bogus. The rules for the event said unlimited mulligans and a mulligan does not count as a stroke. The score card would read 1. He had two chances for a hole in 1 and got it on his second chance.

3

What he should have added was “But note that I didn’t score a 2 on that hole - by the rules we were playing under, my score was 1.”

The response to that should have been “Fine - show me where that was written.”

Interesting but not relevant to the case.

4

So how many $5 mulligans would have been purchased if the participants knew that they were not eligible for the $10,000? My guess is between zero and none. Clearly deceptive advertising!

5

What the hell’s a mulligan?

6

A chance to retry a shot that did not go well; i.e., a “do over”.

7

I know from experience that unless you’re sitting in on the trial, you don’t get everything, and even then, there’s a lot you never hear unless you’re working for one of the litigants. However, based on everything provided in the news stories, I’d have to guess that Fisher would have been on the winning side.

I don’t even care to guess at the settlement dollar amount, but I imagine that if Fisher was that happy after leaving the courtroom, he did OK for himself.

8

I have a small anecdote.

Back in the early 90’s my father was in a golf tournament, and one hole had a hole-in-one prize of an Infiniti Q45. He hits it. The insurance company tried to avoid paying off by claiming that my dad teed off a couple feet in front of the tee.

They couldn’t come up with any witnesses who’d side with them though :smiley:

9

I find it hard to believe a corporation would bother going to trial on a $10,000 claim.

10

I side with the golfer. A “hole in one” clearly means a hole that you score 1 on, unless there’s some other definition explicitly stated.

11

It sounds weird until you read this :

On Monday, Fisher is scheduled to appear in the Polk County Courthouse to press his claim that the FFA should have awarded him the $10,000 prize. His argument is that, by selling him a mulligan for $5 and not detailing any conditions for its use, the tournament organizers are bound by their promise to pay out on a hole-in-one.

If that were all jurors on the civil case would have to consider, the case might not have gotten to trial. The FFA’s defense is that Fisher and other competitors were bound by the terms of the tournament insurance policy that protected the organizers in case someone won the prize. The insurance company is not a party to the suit.