Bride run over by golf cart sues B.C.'s Furry Creek Golf Course
Natasha Quigley, who lives in the U.K., had travelled to B.C. for the Aug. 1 wedding last year at Furry Creek Golf Course.
The ceremony was scheduled outdoors with views of Howe Sound, mountains and towering cedars, according to the invite on theknot.com.
The plan was upended sometime between the ceremony and the reception, according to her Vancouver lawyer, Manjot Hallen, who said he wouldn't discuss details because the case is before the courts.
'She was indeed injured,' said Hallen.
According to the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Quigley was a passenger on a golf cart when the driver 'struck a bump at high speed, causing Mrs. Quigley's dress to fall and become entangled' in a wheel, according to the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court,
She was 'ejected from the golf cart while it was in motion, then dragged and run over by it,' it said.
Quigley was left with cuts and scrapes and injuries to almost every part of her body, including her head, neck and back, legs, hips, feet and left shoulder/rotator cuff, according to the lawsuit.
She also suffered depression and anxiety, it said.
The lawsuit says her injuries 'continue to cause the plaintiff pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of housekeeping capacity, permanent physical disability, loss of physical, mental and emotional health and loss of earnings' past and future, and she seeks an undisclosed amount of damages.
The main defendant is Fine Peace Furry Creek Golf Ltd. Partnership.
The course disputed the driver was speeding or reckless while driving the couple, the best man, the maid of honour and a photographer to the 14th hole by the ocean for photos, said deputy general manager Patrick Guan.
'It was an accident and nobody wanted it to happen,' he said, saying the driver would have been slowing down for the curve when it happened. The cart didn't tip and no one else was injured, he said.
He said the accident was caused by the train of her dress getting entangled in the rear wheel and agreed she was dragged and driven over by the cart. He said it was just over her toe and the driver stopped when he became aware of what happened.
Quigley was offered first aid and asked if she wanted staff to call 911 but she declined, he said, adding she was responsible for holding her own train.
After the course received a letter from Quigley asking for compensation for her dress and requesting some rental costs be waived, staff reviewed video and it showed her dancing, drinking and 'having fun' from 7 p.m. to past midnight, he said.
Guan said the company's lawyer, after reviewing the internal accident report, declined compensation.
The claim says under B.C.'s Occupiers Act, owners have a duty to ensure the public's safety and the 'incident was caused or contributed to by the negligence' by them or their employees.
That includes 'failing to take reasonable care to ensure that the plaintiff would be safe while riding the golf cart' and failing to remedy hazards or warn guests of the hazards.
The lawsuit said the owners are liable for the actions of its employees, alleging the driver was negligent by driving without due care or recklessly, by speeding or by failing to take steps to avoid the incident, it said.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Furry Creek, 40 minutes north of Vancouver on the way to Whistler, served as backdrop for the famously funny scene in the original 1996 Happy Gilmour movie, where Adam Sandler's character has a protracted fist fight with Bob Barker, who played himself.
Judge slams photographer for botching wedding job, awards couple $22,000
Driver in fatal West Vancouver wedding crash fined $2,000
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Meta investors, Zuckerberg to square off at $8 billion trial over alleged privacy violations
By Tom Hals WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -Mark Zuckerberg is expected to appear as a star witness in an unusual $8 billion trial that kicks off this week at which the Meta CEO is accused of operating Facebook as an illegal enterprise that allowed users' data to be harvested without their consent. Shareholders of Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, sued Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders, saying they continually violated a 2012 agreement between Facebook and the Federal Trade Commission to protect users' data. The case dates back to 2018, after it emerged that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump's successful campaign for U.S. president in 2016. Shareholders want Zuckerberg and the other defendants to reimburse the company for more than $8 billion in fines and other costs paid by Meta after the Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light, including a record $5 billion fine imposed on Facebook by the FTC in 2019 for violating the 2012 agreement. Defendants in the case include former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, as well as former board members Peter Thiel, the Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, the co-founder of Netflix. Zuckerberg and the other defendants, who declined to comment, have dismissed the allegations in court filings as "extreme claims." Meta, which is not a defendant, also declined to comment. The non-jury trial in Wilmington, Delaware, is scheduled to last eight days. It will mostly focus on decade-old events and board meetings to determine how Facebook leaders implemented the 2012 agreement. While the trial will cover long-ago policies, it comes as privacy concerns continue to dog Meta, which is under scrutiny for its training of AI models. The company says it has invested billions of dollars since 2019 in its program to safeguard users' privacy. Jason Kint, the head of Digital Content Next, a trade group for content providers, said the case will fill in details about what the board knew - and when - regarding the data of users, who now total more than 3 billion daily across Meta's platforms. "There's an argument we can't avoid Facebook and Instagram in our lives," he said. "Can we trust Mark Zuckerberg?" MOST DIFFICULT CLAIMS Two years ago, the defendants sought to dismiss the case before trial, which the judge declined. "This is a case involving alleged wrongdoing on a truly colossal scale," said Travis Laster, the judge handling the case at the time. The trial in the Court of Chancery will be overseen by Kathaleen McCormick. Now the plaintiffs, individual investors and union pension funds including California's State Teachers' Retirement System, must prove what is often described as the most difficult claim in corporate law - showing that directors utterly failed in their duty of oversight. Legal experts said it appears to be the first trial on such a claim. Zuckerberg and Sandberg are alleged to have knowingly caused the company to violate the law. While Delaware law protects directors and officers for bad business decisions, it does not protect them from illegal ones, even if they are profitable. Defendants said in court filings that plaintiffs cannot deliver the evidence. The shareholders in pretrial court papers said they can prove that after the 2012 agreement, Facebook continued deceptive privacy practices, at the direction of Zuckerberg. The defendants said the evidence will show that the company built a team to oversee privacy and hired an outside compliance firm and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica's "studied deceit." In addition to the central privacy claims, plaintiffs also allege that when Zuckerberg could see that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was about break and send company stock lower, he was motivated to offload his stock and reaped at least $1 billion in profit. Defendants said evidence will show he used a stock-trading plan that can protect against insider-trading allegations. They also said the motivation was to benefit his charitable pursuits. Sign in to access your portfolio
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Backstreet Boys' Brian Littrell sues Florida sheriff for refusing to remove trespassers from his private beach
Backstreet Boys singer Brian Littrell has filed a lawsuit against a Florida county, accusing the sheriff's department of refusing to keep trespassers off of his private beach. Littrell said that to protect the "peaceful enjoyment" of his property in Walton County, Florida, on the Gulf Coast, his limited liability company, BLB Beach Hut LLC, has put up "no trespassing" signs as well as tables, chairs and umbrellas showing where the property line starts on the beach, according to the lawsuit obtained by Fox News Digital and filed in a Florida court recently. He wrote that the efforts have been "in vain, as numerous trespassers have set out to antagonize, bully and harass the Littrell family by regularly, every day, trespassing on BLB's beach, on the Subject Property, in open defiance of the law." The lawsuit seeks a writ of mandamus to require the sheriff's department to keep the alleged trespassers off of his beach. Littrell wrote in the lawsuit that he has been forced to hire security to protect his land and family, and filled out a Walton County Trespass Authorization Form, authorizing the sheriff's department to warn and prosecute trespassers on his property. "Despite BLB's numerous requests and the execution of the required forms, the sheriff has refused to come to the Subject Property to enforce the law and remove the trespassers, to charge the trespassers, or to take any action, at all, thereby refusing to do their duty," the lawsuit claims. The lawsuit says that on May 4, a sheriff's deputy spoke to an alleged trespasser on Littrell's property, but didn't remove the trespasser or cite them, merely saying that the alleged trespasser "'doesn't agree with private beaches,' going on to characterize BLB's insistence that it's constitutional rights be upheld as 'lunacy,' to use one of the words used by a deputy of the Sheriff's Department." The lawsuit also claims that on June 5, an alleged trespasser grabbed legal documents related to the dispute out of the property manager's hand "and scattered the papers into the wind across the beach." Littrel said BLB also contacted the sheriff's department twice that day regarding the "aggressor," but the department "refused to send any officer." "When BLB personnel contacted the Sheriff for the third time to request an officer again, the 911 operator simply hung up on BLB personnel rather than dispatching the officer that was requested more than an hour prior," the lawsuit states. He claimed that the sheriff's department is now "openly defying BLB's requests for assistance to protect its constitutionally protected property rights," claiming that deputies were overheard on two separate occasions saying that the sheriff was "proud of not issuing any citations for trespassing on the property." "Vitriol" against BLB "has recently escalated," the lawsuit says, claiming that a trespasser damaged a table on his property "after being warned by a BLB employee." Littrell claimed that a deputy had come to the property, but hadn't taken any action against the alleged trespasser, and "body camera footage shows multiple instances of disrespect against BLB's agents by the responding officer." "We bought a home here on this private beach on the Gulf of America in order to be able to vacation in quiet, to be able to enjoy our time without any attention or drama." Claiming the sheriff's department continues to "shirk its duty," the lawsuit added, "These are unprecedented times, if the Sheriff continues to refuse to protect and uphold the rights of BLB and other community members, private property and other rights held by Florida citizens will only exist on paper." The Walton County Sheriff's Office told Fox News Digital the department doesn't "comment on pending litigation," adding it "prides itself on handling every situation, call for service, or interaction with professionalism using a customer service approach. This has always been our philosophy and will continue to be moving forward." Littrell told Fox News Digital in a statement: "We bought a home here on this private beach on the Gulf of America in order to be able to vacation in quiet, to be able to enjoy our time without any attention or drama. Unfortunately, we had no idea that there was already a battle which had been happening for years." He said that since buying the home, "we have been targeted by people that don't normally frequent this beach or live in the area. These people, the ones who insist on trespassing in what is actually our backyard, who started this fight have to pass several scarcely populated public beach areas to get to our property." Littrell claimed that the alleged trespassers are "people who believe that anyone who has succeeded and managed to live the American Dream must be bad people. They want it so no one owns anything, and everyone is happy, except it never works out that way." He added, "The really scary thing is we have provided to law enforcement all the things they asked of all the private beach homeowners to enforce the law and they will not bother to do their duty to protect the homeowners. They will not do the job they were hired to do when hired and sworn in under oath to … protect the citizens and enforce the law."' He claimed the sheriff's department has "come against us and will not do their jobs. They allow people to harass and stalk us and the security people," they hired, adding, "They are MAD that we bought a home on a private beach."
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Tesla Faces First Jury Trial Tied to Its Autopilot System
Tesla has faced a string of lawsuits over the last five years stemming from fatal crashes involving cars equipped with its Autopilot driver-assist system. The automaker has settled some of the lawsuits and others have been dismissed, allowing the company to avoid any legal judgments about Autopilot's safety and whether it is flawed. But a new case that is set to begin in federal court in Miami on Monday is the first to go to a jury trial, representing a serious threat to Tesla, its self-driving technology and its reputation. The suit stems from a 2019 crash of a Tesla Model S sedan driven at night on a two-lane road in South Florida, with the Autopilot engaged. When the driver dropped his cellphone and bent to look for it, the car crashed into a parked sport-utility vehicle, killing one pedestrian and injuring another. The case, which is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, was filed by the family of Naibel Benavides, who was killed in the crash, and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who survived with grave injuries. Documents in the case indicate that Tesla's attorneys plan to argue that Autopilot was not fully in control of the car at the time of the crash and that the driver, George Brian McGee, was solely responsible. Data from the car shows he had his foot on the accelerator, pushing its speed to 62 miles per hour, above the posted limit of 45 m.p.h. Pressing the accelerator overrode the cruise control part of Autopilot, which is designed to brake for obstacles or other vehicles. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
