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
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I-TEAM: Browns fire back in federal court after ruling in dome case
[WATCH: Previous, related coverage from the I-Team.] CLEVELAND (WJW) — The Fox 8 I- TEAM has found a new filing in federal court by the Cleveland Browns asking to move ahead on their lawsuit against Cleveland in the hope of clearing a path to move to Brook Park. Advertisement The Browns filed the lawsuit in federal court in October seeking clarity on the Modell Law, which originally restricted sports teams from moving. The Browns want the Modell Law declared unconstitutional. Browns' rookie jailed on battery charge out on bond The City of Cleveland asked the federal judge on June 27 to 'hold deadlines in abeyance' and issue a stay in the federal case. The city's motion was filed a short time after state lawmakers made an amendment to the Modell Law allowing sports teams to move as long as they stay in Ohio. The federal court granted the stay, but the Browns now say, in a federal motion filed July 10, that the city is still trying to enforce the Modell Law in county court. 'The 'harm or threatened harm underlying the dispute' is the city's active effort to enforce the Modell Law against the Browns,' the motion states. The amendment does not eliminate that harm because the City continues to prosecute its enforcement suit in state court— the very conduct that the Browns challenge as unlawful in this action. And the City has neither acted nor indicated any intention to cease its effort to enforce the Modell Law and dismiss that suit. Far from ceding any claim under the prior version of the Modell Law, the City's motion reveals the City's intent to pursue such claims. The attorneys for the Browns also argue that the city has not satisfied the standard for imposing such a stay, and the Browns say a lengthy delay in the case could be detrimental. Advertisement Woman stabbed to death in front yard 'The Browns do not just need relief at some point—they need it soon,' the motion states. The Browns brought this suit last year, in 2024, because obtaining the financing and approvals necessary to develop a new stadium in Brook Park, let alone the construction itself, will take years. Prompt resolution of the Browns' claims is critical because the Browns must take action now to have any hope of building a new stadium in Brook Park by the time their current lease expires and before the 2029 NFL season begins. The Browns plan to build an enclosed stadium and move to Brook Park at the end of their lease on the lakefront after the 2028 season. The Browns and the City are battling in federal court and the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Friday, a county judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the City against the Browns. And, the city just asked the county judge for an order blocking the Browns from taking any steps at all toward moving to a dome. The latest filing by the city now accuses the Browns of breaching their contract with the city, even though the team plans to stay in Huntington Bank Field on the lakefront until the end of the lease. Advertisement Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to Fox 8 Cleveland WJW.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bail date set for 3 Quebec men accused of facilitating a terrorist activity
Three men facing terrorism-related charges and firearms offences will appear in court for a bail hearing next week. Marc-Aurèle Chabot, Simon Angers-Audet, and Raphaël Lagacé have been charged with facilitating a terrorist activity and weapon-possession charges. The RCMP says the charges are tied to ideologically motivated violent extremism. Chabot, Angers-Audet and Lagacé will appear for a two-day bail hearing — due to the amount of evidence the prosecution says needs to be presented — on July 24 and 25 at the Quebec City courthouse. They remain detained and appeared briefly in court on Monday by video conference. A fourth individual, Matthew Forbes faces charges related to weapons possession. Forbes was released on bail on Monday on $40,000 bond. He agreed to conditions that include wearing a GPS bracelet and possessing no weapons. He will next appear in court on Sept. 12. The RCMP said last week in a news release that Chabot, Angers-Audet and Lagacé had been hoarding firearms and planned to take land in the Quebec City area by force. Police allege they were building up an "anti-government militia." The Department of National Defence (DND) said in a news release Monday that both Chabot and Forbes are currently serving in the Canadian Army. Forbes enrolled in the Canadian Army in October 2016 and joined the 5e Régiment d'artillerie légèredu Canada in November 2017. He was deployed to two operations. He was part of a military contingent that assisted the RCMP in securing the G7 in Charlevoix, Que., in 2018, and he deployed in 2019 as part of Operation Reassurance — Canada's contribution to NATO's defence measures in Central Europe. Chabot enrolled in the Canadian Army as a reservist in June 2019 and transferred to the regular force in July 2023. Angers-Audet enrolled in the Canadian Army as a reservist in June 2019 until May 2022. Lagacé was a civilian instructor with the air cadets. The DND news release also said none of the weapons seized during the RCMP investigation into the four men originated from the Canadian Armed Forces. Philippe Audet, the father of Angers-Audet, told CBC News last week that he believed his son was being framed. He said his son had been training to perform better in the military and wasn't involved in any terrorism-related activity. He said he was shocked when an RCMP SWAT team burst into his home to arrest his son.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
ESPN, NFL Fight Mark Gastineau's $100M Lawsuit Over '30 for 30′
ESPN, the NFL and other defendants named in retired New York Jets defensive end Mark Gastineau's $100 million breach of contract and false endorsement lawsuit argue in a new motion to dismiss the case that the five-time Pro Bowler's legal theories are contradicted by contracts he signed and defy basic principles of both the right of publicity and the First Amendment. In March, Gastineau filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York accusing ESPN and the NFL of using unauthorized video of him confronting retired Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre at a sports memorabilia show in 2023. The video appears in '30 for 30: The New York Sack Exchange,' which centers on Gastineau and teammates who were part of the highly-vaunted Jets' defensive line in the early 1980s. The 30 for 30 includes a clip of Gastineau accusing Favre of 'falling down' in the final minutes of the 2001 regular season, when New York Giant defensive end Michael Strahan sacked Favre and broke Gastineau's NFL record for most sacks in a single season. Gastineau, 68, says he has been ridiculed on social media over how he is portrayed. He says he never consented to the filming of the Favre confrontation. Gastineau also accuses ESPN and the NFL of placing him in a false light by omitting video of Gastineau and Favre shaking hands at the end of their conversation. Through a brief filed by Alexander Kaplan and other attorneys from Oppenheim + Zebrak on July 3, ESPN and the NFL assert Gastineau's case has numerous flaws. First, Gastineau signed contracts with NFL Films that—ESPN and the NFL maintain—negate his claims. Of central importance Gastineau signed a talent agreement which, in exchange for Gastineau receiving compensation, granted NFL films the right to his NIL and other aspects of his right of publicity, including his voice, actions and biographical information. The agreement also contemplated Gastineau waiving any right to approve how he is portrayed or to approve the film itself. Likewise, the agreement indicates that NFL films can modify and edit content. It also neither requires nor excludes 'any material to be specifically included in the Film.' ESPN and the NFL maintain that a plain reading of the contractual language should end Gastineau's case. As the defendants tell it, he granted 'unfettered rights of publicity, including with respect to the footage about which he is complaining.' Beyond contractual language, ESPN and the NFL stress the 'Favre Encounter' was a newsworthy event and thus exempt from right of publicity and privacy claims. The defendants stress that the encounter was of public interest because it concerned Gastineau's relationship with Favre regarding and tackled an especially divisive topic: Whether Favre took a dive to give Strahan the all-time NFL single season sack record. 'The Favre Encounter,' the defendants wrote, 'is a key development in the narrative of Gastineau's legacy, how he was impacted by Favre's sack, and how his New York Sack Exchange teammates viewed him.' ESPN and the NFL also argue that while Gastineau contends his impromptu meeting with Favre at the memorabilia show was a 'private encounter,' it was anything but. The defendants point out that Gastineau and Favre were surrounded by onlookers. Gastineau also wore a microphone provided by the film crew, which indicates he 'consented to the recording.' This was also not a hidden camera situation: the film crew was around Gastineau, and he was 'fully aware' of them. In addition, ESPN and the NFL stress how in interpreting the First Amendment, courts have consistently protected artistic works, including documentaries and other biographical works. The New York Sack Exchange and its members, including Gastineau, are fair game for historical reports and other media, the defendants insist. Through what is sometimes coined artistic license, filmmakers also enjoy substantial discretion in how they tell of events and narrate history. Lastly, ESPN and the NFL maintain that Gastineau didn't suffer any damages. He contractually assented to appear in a film and to the filmmaker controlling how he appeared. Further, 'waived any right to inspect or approve' how he appeared in the film. The defendants essentially argue that Gastineau is complaining about something he contractually accepted and thus can't establish he was harmed in a way the law ought to remedy. Gastineau will have the opportunity to try to rebut ESPN and the NFL's arguments by filing an opposition to their motion to dismiss. The case is before U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. Advertisement More from Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
