Oops I Broke a Window

[Exactice808]

going to throw my hat in this real quick

 

1) To the OP.... the moral thing to do is leave your name and number

2) The common thing..... do you know for a FACT that the ball you hit, actually broke the window? DID YOU see it strike and break the window? If not carry on, the owner of the damaged property should have coverage and since it was a not at fault situation for the homeowner their rate would not likely go up.

 

 

OK Insurance part of it.

legal liability, negligence and waiver of subrogation.

 

I hit an errant shot, I hear a thud or glass break, a homeowner is standing outside their fence, claiming a broken window. I did NOT witness the ball going through the window, but my ball is there.

 

How a claim "normally" works;

The homeowner (broken window) would put in a claim under their policy to FIX their home period (this would be the correct action as this is the fastest way for the homeowner to be made whole again prior to the loss).

 

Their homeowner's carrier would then have a right to subrogate against the at fault party for reimbursement (being I, the golfer). Against either me individually or if I have my own Homeowners policy I would likely have coverage under my Personal liability due to "property damage to a 3rd party" BUT , The Golfer DOES NOT have a right to waive their duty to defend on their carriers behalf, Meaning a Carrier CAN in-fact deny the claim of subrogation by the homeowner's insurance. If the homeowner did not witness my ball going through their window but just heard the sound and my ball was on their property. That does NOT prove that I the golfer was the at fault party. The Carrier under my policy has a right to defend me in stating that we cannot prove legal liability.

 

What would then happen as stated prior, is this claim would go through small claims court IF the homeowner party is willing to do so. Likely their homeowners carrier would avoid it as the legal fees are NOT worth the recovery nor the time. So essentially, YES all homeowners that live on the course would be responsible for their damages.... The insurance carrier than has the choice to subrogate.

 

If the homeowner does not want to make a claim on their policy and try to go after the at fault party, the burden of proof lies with the homeowner. Which is an uphill battle.

 

 

Another way to look at it is the foul ball situation, we all witness the hit, the ball strikes and breaks the window. The correct action is to make the claim under the Owners Auto policy and THEN the Auto carrier surbrogates against the at fault party, be it the person that hit the foul ball, OR if it was a child, vicarious liability applies to the parents of the child and their policy would be triggered for recovery and IF NO policy or coverage a suit of recovery directly to the at fault individual (If the carrier choose to go that civil legal route, which most wont do to the cost factor)

 

so we are back at square one where the damaged property owner would go through their coverage to be made whole FIRST anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

[wkuo3]

> @kmay__ said:

> The rightb thing to do? Is leave your name and contact info for them and offer to pay for the window or any other resulting damages.

 

Exactlly !

If you hit a parked car by accisent, what would or sould you do ? If you're a responsible person, you'll know and need not asking. Consequences are quite different in the two different cases.

Hit and run is a big no, no. I believe it would be a felony offense in most cases. Damage to the personal property ( broken window ) maybe just a misdemeanor, but , ask yourself, waht if you're the one wearing his shoes ?

Going to the Pro-Shop and leave your contact information is probably better than leaving a note at the property. The note could be lost due to the weather and the owners might be on vacation.

If the owners are out of town and the broken window might expose the weather elements to the interior of the house ( not to mention possible opportunity theft resulting from the broken window ). The pro- shop probab ly would have contact information of the owners and could patch up the window frame should the owners be out on vacation.

Think about it, not that difficult to make the right decision.

[MtlJeff]

I'll leave my name and information just as soon as all the guys with houses on golf courses start leaving the balls hit into their backyards in the pro shop so golfers can get them back , rather than selling them on craigslist.

 

 

[LeoLeo99]

This reminded me an encounter on the course years ago. The hole had condos on the left side and water down the right side. We would typically play it left and fade it back to the fairway. If you hit a pull draw instead of a fade, you would be close to the condos. I hit one way left. Didn't hit the condo but was close to one of them. I went over to get my ball and you could see the golf ball sized dents in the siding on the condos. A guy starts yelling at me because my ball almost hit his sunbathing wife. We had to explain to him that sunbathing next to the golf course wasn't a good idea and pointed out all the dents in the siding as proof.

[Hawkeye77]

> @Exactice808 said:

> going to throw my hat in this real quick

>

> 1) To the OP.... the moral thing to do is leave your name and number

> 2) The common thing..... do you know for a FACT that the ball you hit, actually broke the window? DID YOU see it strike and break the window? If not carry on, the owner of the damaged property should have coverage and since it was a not at fault situation for the homeowner their rate would not likely go up.

>

>

> OK Insurance part of it.

> legal liability, negligence and waiver of subrogation.

>

> I hit an errant shot, I hear a thud or glass break, a homeowner is standing outside their fence, claiming a broken window. I did NOT witness the ball going through the window, but my ball is there.

>

> How a claim "normally" works;

> The homeowner (broken window) would put in a claim under their policy to FIX their home period (this would be the correct action as this is the fastest way for the homeowner to be made whole again prior to the loss).

>

> Their homeowner's carrier would then have a right to subrogate against the at fault party for reimbursement (being I, the golfer). Against either me individually or if I have my own Homeowners policy I would likely have coverage under my Personal liability due to "property damage to a 3rd party" BUT , The Golfer DOES NOT have a right to waive their duty to defend on their carriers behalf, Meaning a Carrier CAN in-fact deny the claim of subrogation by the homeowner's insurance. If the homeowner did not witness my ball going through their window but just heard the sound and my ball was on their property. That does NOT prove that I the golfer was the at fault party. The Carrier under my policy has a right to defend me in stating that we cannot prove legal liability.

>

> What would then happen as stated prior, is this claim would go through small claims court IF the homeowner party is willing to do so. Likely their homeowners carrier would avoid it as the legal fees are NOT worth the recovery nor the time. So essentially, YES all homeowners that live on the course would be responsible for their damages.... The insurance carrier than has the choice to subrogate.

>

> If the homeowner does not want to make a claim on their policy and try to go after the at fault party, the burden of proof lies with the homeowner. Which is an uphill battle.

>

>

> Another way to look at it is the foul ball situation, we all witness the hit, the ball strikes and breaks the window. The correct action is to make the claim under the Owners Auto policy and THEN the Auto carrier surbrogates against the at fault party, be it the person that hit the foul ball, OR if it was a child, vicarious liability applies to the parents of the child and their policy would be triggered for recovery and IF NO policy or coverage a suit of recovery directly to the at fault individual (If the carrier choose to go that civil legal route, which most wont do to the cost factor)

>

> so we are back at square one where the damaged property owner would go through their coverage to be made whole FIRST anyways.

>

>

>

>

>

That wasn't quick, lol.

 

Deductible still involved for the damaged homeowner so not necessarily "made whole" but as good as it will get. Not up to the homeowner whether it goes though court if the insurance company decides to subrogate and file an action, the policy obligates the homeowner to cooperate in that effort. Maybe small claims if just broken glass, and yes, not only unlikely, but virtually guaranteed the company isn't going after that in most cases theses days IMO - too many claims being handled by too few people and often many states away unlike the good old days.

 

Vicarious liability may or may not apply to the kid's parents. First, the kid can be negligent and subject to a claim in his or her own right and a claim can be made for which there may be insurance if proven under a policy owned by the parents and second, sometimes it requires more than simple negligence to trigger a vicarious liability claim and there are often $ limits on damages that can be obtained in such a claim. Anyway, if it is your car you get $ less your deductible from your company and 99.9999999% of the time there isn't any talk of "at fault" or claims back against any Little Leaguers, lol. It's not the cost factor, it's because there is no case, haha.

 

 

[Exactice808]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> That wasn't quick, lol.

>

> Deductible still involved for the damaged homeowner so not necessarily "made whole" but as good as it will get. Not up to the homeowner whether it goes though court if the insurance company decides to subrogate and file an action, the policy obligates the homeowner to cooperate in that effort. Maybe small claims if just broken glass, and yes, not only unlikely, but virtually guaranteed the company isn't going after that in most cases theses days IMO - too many claims being handled by too few people and often many states away unlike the good old days.

>

> Vicarious liability may or may not apply to the kid's parents. First, the kid can be negligent and subject to a claim in his or her own right and a claim can be made for which there may be insurance if proven under a policy owned by the parents and second, sometimes it requires more than simple negligence to trigger a vicarious liability claim and there are often $ limits on damages that can be obtained in such a claim. Anyway, if it is your car you get $ less your deductible from your company and 99.9999999% of the time there isn't any talk of "at fault" or claims back against any Little Leaguers, lol. It's not the cost factor, it's because there is no case, haha.

>

>

HAAHAH maybe I should have left out the real quick,

 

Well the deductible is a "homeowners choice" they chose to self retain X limit. they could if they so chose to pay higher premiums for a lower deductible. That is NOT on the golfer who was negligent in their wayward shot =)

 

Correct! that is why the Homeowner NOR the Golfer can WAIVE their right to subrogation. That even stands in a car accident, where a person rear ends another person, it "seems" clear that the rear car is at fault, the driver CANNOT say its my fault and then claim that their insurance will pay for the damages. THAT IS NOT THE right of the driver. Only the carrier can finalized the claim payout. If the carrier finds that the VEHICLE had a malfunction that was not of the driver but that of a manufacture defect, the claim could be denied and then forced to be pursued against the manufacture NOT the driver.

 

Small claims court can be tough, again the burden of proof is on the accuser, so again a wayward golf ball may be harder to claim in court (outside of an insurance claim) then people think. That is why I edify that its normally best for the homeowner to make the claim with their own policy to begin with.

 

As for vicarious liability, used in very generic terms there are some grey areas, but generally speaking, a child does not normally have their own 3rd party personal liability and most parents policies have a household/child liability Ryder (" HO-10 extension of coverage") that extend liability both by named insured/marriage, household etc

 

Finally to your point of the actual deductible, while there is NO direct recovery rights... sometimes that "can be" exchanged on the course....i.e. my deductible is $250 just exchange the $250 and we are good etc. As there is no point in pursuing the claim but the golfer could pay for the deductible. While its not the correct thing to do (I did not use right or wrong as this is not a moral choice) it can help ease the burden on the homeowner.

 

 

LOL little leaguer, imagine that going to court.... guess who they would side with... Not the insurance company thats for sure........... Insurance Carriers are sometimes treated worse than Lawyers........

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2bGood]

> @MtlJeff said:

> I'll leave my name and information just as soon as all the guys with houses on golf courses start leaving the balls hit into their backyards in the pro shop so golfers can get them back , rather than selling them on craigslist.

>

>

 

I love your sense of humour!

[cmagnusson]

> @hoselpalooza said:

> > @BrandonDunes said:

> > Think of it like a neighborhood kid throws a ball through your window. Certainly an accident, but the responsibility of the person who threw the ball.

>

> this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

>

> what about a foul ball hit during an official little league game? should the batter's family be responsible for a broken car window or is it the pitcher's fault?

 

Kid throwing a ball is totally different than something that happens where you are purposefully putting your property (albeit physical property or property in the real estate sense) next to a sporting complex that is well known for having projectiles leave its boundaries.

 

In our slow-pitch league we have no-parking signs all along the fences and the diamonds, you have to park a solid 250 yards away and walk up to them. We had 1 or 2 entitled assholes that liked to think they were special enough to ignore those signs and drive right up to the dugouts, and when their cars got hit (accidentally, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I would waste a few strikes trying to foul one off on occasion to send a message) they got zero sympathy from any players around. Similar to a house on a course, if you choose to put it there and have an IQ over 10, you're doing it fully aware of the risks involved and are 100% responsible when they inevitably occur.

 

 

[davep043]

For you gentlemen who are talking in legal terms, and who certainly know more than I, do your discussions apply in all states, or are there states which specifically absolve the golfer of legal responsibility as long as they are simply playing the game and not acting negligently?

[Warrior42111]

Every state, and even town can be different. Also, different HOAs around courses can be different on what is allowed or not. Personally I have lived in MA, NC, and FL, and everywhere I've seen is that the golfer is under no legal obligation unless they were intentionally hitting at a persons property. Of course there are probably some exceptions.

 

Please note this information is just from experience living in these states and talking with some who live on courses.

[davep043]

> @Warrior42111 said:

> Every state, and even town can be different. Also, different HOAs around courses can be different on what is allowed or not. Personally I have lived in MA, NC, and FL, and everywhere I've seen is that the golfer is under no legal obligation unless they were intentionally hitting at a persons property. Of course there are probably some exceptions.

>

> Please note this information is just from experience living in these states and talking with some who live on courses.

 

That's what I read in most of the stuff I found in a brief online search. The discussions in posts 35 and 36 had me wondering if my "research" was completely off base.

[Warrior42111]

That's. why I think it may be state by state. I just pulled up my insurance policy and had a co worker pull of there's (different companies). They both state (paraphrased) that the home owner is responsible for the deductible for damage caused by a golf ball being struck in the normal play of a game. Basically I would have to prove that the person did it with intent so, I'd have to see them and recording them aiming and firing away.

 

Side note, my buddies policy has an HOA addendum that says he must allow people to get their balls off of his property (not play but remove and drop back into play)

[HiTrajLoSpin]

Seems to me that the homeowners are implicitly assuming liability for damage due to errant golf balls when they knowingly choose to reside along a golf course. In such cases, the "right thing to do" is not to blame the golfer, but admit that such damage is a consequence of their (i.e., the homeowners) questionable decision making.

[davep043]

> @Warrior42111 said:

> Side note, my buddies policy has an HOA addendum that says he must allow people to get their balls off of his property (not play but remove and drop back into play)

My home club is associated with a housing development, and I know the HOA documents have the same requirement, golfers must be allowed to pick up (but not play) their golf balls from the homeowners private property.

 

[Exactice808]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Warrior42111 said:

> > Side note, my buddies policy has an HOA addendum that says he must allow people to get their balls off of his property (not play but remove and drop back into play)

> My home club is associated with a housing development, and I know the HOA documents have the same requirement, golfers must be allowed to pick up (but not play) their golf balls from the homeowners private property.

>

 

So here will be some mind blowing situations, Certain states may NOT even have control of the responsibility of the Homeowner period.

"insurance" is generically required by 3 points

1) LAW - Auto insurance regulated by the state, to operate a vehilce on state/government roads.

2) Contract - Mortgage or AOAO requirements

3) Self - If you find your own personal need.

 

With that being said some states do NOT EVEN require a home to be insured. So if they own the property free and clear and do NOT live within an association that requires insurance. The owner has no responsibility to purchase. My point being is that REGARDLESS living on a course. THE OWNER is responsible for the tangible property they purchase. Be it, Car, Home, Jewelry, Golf clubs. if it is of significant value to the individual, and if a hazards or loss exist and the homeowner does NOT choose to insure it or insure it properly thats SOLELY on the homeowner.

 

Accidents happen and as I stated the burden of proof would have to prove that it was not an negligent action, that burden is heavy in a civil court hearing.

 

Sorry your long answer, State by state may have different Home insurance requirements, AOAO by AOAO may have Insurance requirements that may DIFFER from the State they reside. Small claims like these have different court rulings in which burden of proof applies, to which subrogation is vert difficult for the amount trying to recover (i.e. $2,000 recover when the court fees and investigation ends up being $5,000 its a waste of time, energy & resources) . Where ultimately they court would rule the insurance would just have to pay. And if NO insurance the court would rule well you should have had it so its on you to fix your OWN house you chose to purchase in a high hazard area.

 

(Sharing my experience)

[KenRobie]

I believe we have coverage for that through the rider on our golf cart insurance?

[BKN1964]

> @Warrior42111 said:

> That's. why I think it may be state by state. I just pulled up my insurance policy and had a co worker pull of there's (different companies). They both state (paraphrased) that the home owner is responsible for the deductible for damage caused by a golf ball being struck in the normal play of a game. Basically I would have to prove that the person did it with intent so, I'd have to see them and recording them aiming and firing away.

>

> Side note, my buddies policy has an HOA addendum that says he must allow people to get their balls off of his property (not play but remove and drop back into play)

 

I'm no lawyer, but:

 

Sounds like what you're referencing is just a contract between the insured and the insurer. The insurer doesn't really care if the insured has to come up with the money from their own pocket, or get it from the person who caused the damage. Doesn't really address the question of whether the golfer can be held legally liable for the damages, even if just the deductible. I would think the insured could always attempt to collect from the golfer, including suing. Doesn't mean they'll always win. The interesting part for me would be to know whether or not, if it did end up in court, if I'd then be likely to end up having to pay the homeowner's legal fees as well.

[chippa13]

> @MtlJeff said:

> I'll leave my name and information just as soon as all the guys with houses on golf courses start leaving the balls hit into their backyards in the pro shop so golfers can get them back , rather than selling them on craigslist.

>

>

 

Should other golfers who find balls in the woods return them to the pro shop, too? Don't want to lose a ball in someone's backyard, don't hit it over their fence.

[Exactice808]

> @BKN1964 said:

 

>

> I'm no lawyer, but:

>

> Sounds like what you're referencing is just a contract between the insured and the insurer. The insurer doesn't really care if the insured has to come up with the money from their own pocket, or get it from the person who caused the damage. Doesn't really address the question of whether the golfer can be held legally liable for the damages, even if just the deductible. I would think the insured could always attempt to collect from the golfer, including suing. Doesn't mean they'll always win. The interesting part for me would be to know whether or not, if it did end up in court, if I'd then be likely to end up having to pay the homeowner's legal fees as well.

If I may share my experience.

 

1) The HOMEOWNER SHOULD ALWAYS Claim the loss under their homeowners policy PERIOD.

2) THE Golfer CANNOT say that because I hit it, and broke your window its my fault and I have insurance it will pay. (The Golfer/Insured cannot WAIVE their right of "Duty to defend") If the carrier can prove that the golfer was NOT at fault (for whatever reason, the carrier can then DENY the claim) the Golfer cannot waive this right by stating their insurance will pay.

 

3) If the carrier for the golfer denies the claim legitimately (example that I am aware of) "NO ONE actually saw the ball hit the window, but the homeowner claims it. They notoriously stand outside their home to catch a stray ball and BLAME the golfer that is on the tee-box regardless if it was really them" (Yes its happen, insurance fraud) The only way for the Homeowner to get their window fixed is for them to claim on their policy, OR sue the Golfer. With that yet again if the case does go to court the burden of proof falls on the homeowner to PROVE that it was X golfer and their ball that broke their window, unless you have 24hr video over the teebox an the whole, hole... its a tough battle.

 

3) IF the Homeowners policy does trigger and fix... the Homeowner insurance carrier has 2 options, EAT the loss or subrogate against the golfer. They then try to subrogate a liability claim against the golfers' Personal liability if they have one. Which again will be hard to prove and likely denied. OR they can take them to small claims in which the RECOVERY dollar is well less then the trial expense and the carrier will just forget it.

 

If the WINDOW is of significant value and the insurance has enough proof to show negligence against the golfer they may take it to court... but for most state the tort threshold is $5,000 anyways... not many windows that cost $5,000 (generically speaking)

 

Finally.... recovery, yes of course if in favor of the homeowners then all court fees paid from the at fault party, EITHER through their personal liability if deemed at fault or if NO insurance on the golfer then likely through their own pocket. BUT at that point they golfer may be better of just to settle before the legal recover kicks in.

 

ALL POINTING TO 1 fact...... the homeowner still needs to make the claim on their own policy to fix their window in the most expedited manor. or they may be stuck weeks or months to settle the loss and still have a broken window during that time...... kinda nuts right?

 

 

 

[Warrior42111]

> @BKN1964 said:

> > @Warrior42111 said:

> > That's. why I think it may be state by state. I just pulled up my insurance policy and had a co worker pull of there's (different companies). They both state (paraphrased) that the home owner is responsible for the deductible for damage caused by a golf ball being struck in the normal play of a game. Basically I would have to prove that the person did it with intent so, I'd have to see them and recording them aiming and firing away.

> >

> > Side note, my buddies policy has an HOA addendum that says he must allow people to get their balls off of his property (not play but remove and drop back into play)

>

> I'm no lawyer, but:

>

> Sounds like what you're referencing is just a contract between the insured and the insurer. The insurer doesn't really care if the insured has to come up with the money from their own pocket, or get it from the person who caused the damage. Doesn't really address the question of whether the golfer can be held legally liable for the damages, even if just the deductible. I would think the insured could always attempt to collect from the golfer, including suing. Doesn't mean they'll always win. The interesting part for me would be to know whether or not, if it did end up in court, if I'd then be likely to end up having to pay the homeowner's legal fees as well.

 

So I went down into the thunder-dome of the internet, and the answers vary widely. It looks likes there are 3 most common scenarios.

1. The HOA thing I mentioned earlier, basically if you live in a golf course HOA many have a part where they basically say you waive your right to suit the course and/or it's players as it is an assumed risk of purchasing said property.

2. House was there before the golf course, or golf course made a change that put the house in a hit zone. This is where I saw the most success in legal cases (but again rulings were all over). But the main argument for the homeowners was that when they purchased it was not a problem / risk and changes made.

3. House was built after course, no HOA or insurance statement on liability. this had the greatest spectrum of rulings from the judges. It went from "you bought a house 200 yards on the right side of the fairway, you knew the risk." to "The golfer is in control of what ever happens to their ball."

 

My personal opinion is that if you buy a house on a golf course you know what you are getting yourself into, and the homeowner should not be legally able to sue. Now if the house was there first or the course modified I think you have a solid case at that point. Finally if someone hits at you intentionally I think it goes from civil to big boy court real quick.

[brew4eagle]

The house shouldn't have been standing there. Take your drop and play on.

[MtlJeff]

> @chippa13 said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > I'll leave my name and information just as soon as all the guys with houses on golf courses start leaving the balls hit into their backyards in the pro shop so golfers can get them back , rather than selling them on craigslist.

> >

> >

>

> Should other golfers who find balls in the woods return them to the pro shop, too? Don't want to lose a ball in someone's backyard, don't hit it over their fence.

 

Yes I suppose they should right? I mean they know the ball is not theirs, why should they keep it? Isn't that stealing?

 

If someone lives on a course and collects 100 balls a year (pretty reasonable) that's at a private course where a lot of premium balls are used, 500$ worth of equipment they get that isn't theirs that they just keep. No one asks them to return those balls

 

And that will pay for the cost of some windows after 2 years. I know people who live on courses, they never pay for balls and often brag about it....why should they get to steal balls? Isn't the right thing to do, to bring them back to the pro shop and let the people who lost them claim them?

[LeoLeo99]

Course I played yesterday sells found balls for $1. I picked out a Vice Tour from the $1 ball bin. I have no problem pocketing found balls but I had an ethical dilemma last week when I spotted a pile of balls on the fairway when I reached the green. Looked like someone's bag opened up and balls fell out. Didn't seem right to pocket them so I let them be.

[2bGood]

One of my lame 'dad jokes' is going into a pro-shop asking if they have a lost and found and when they say 'yes' and ask what I lost, I say a "A ProV1 #2 with purple dots". :D

I am the only one who laughs.

 

Bad joking aside, at our club, the common practice if you find someones ball (their initials are on it or they mark it in a distinct way) you return it to them. I get my ball given back to me all the time. The other day some gave me back a ProV1x with my initials and markings. I have played x's in about 3 years so it was neat that it found it's way back to me. Unmarked balls are fair game to keep, but no one wants to play a ball with someone else's marking.

 

[cmagnusson]

> @2bGood said:

> One of my lame 'dad jokes' is going into a pro-shop asking if they have a lost and found and when they say 'yes' and ask what I lost, I say a "A ProV1 #2 with purple dots". :D

> I am the only one who laughs.

>

> Bad joking aside, at our club, the common practice if you find someones ball (their initials are on it or they mark it in a distinct way) you return it to them. I get my ball given back to me all the time. The other day some gave me back a ProV1x with my initials and markings. I have played x's in about 3 years so it was neat that it found it's way back to me. Unmarked balls are fair game to keep, but no one wants to play a ball with someone else's marking.

>

 

I know a guy who orders all his balls with “If lost return to DJ” printed on them

[chippa13]

> @2bGood said:

> One of my lame 'dad jokes' is going into a pro-shop asking if they have a lost and found and when they say 'yes' and ask what I lost, I say a "A ProV1 #2 with purple dots". :D

> I am the only one who laughs.

>

> Bad joking aside, at our club, the common practice if you find someones ball (their initials are on it or they mark it in a distinct way) you return it to them. I get my ball given back to me all the time. The other day some gave me back a ProV1x with my initials and markings. I have played x's in about 3 years so it was neat that it found it's way back to me. Unmarked balls are fair game to keep, but no one wants to play a ball with someone else's marking.

>

 

Along the same lines, sometimes when the cart girl pulls up and asks if I need anything, "Do you have golf ability?"

[blaird]

Morally? Leave info and take care of damages (though I dont agree with this)

 

Legally? If your state is like mine, nothing. My state calls it an inherited risk. If you live on a course, park at a course, drive by a course, etc... you are inheriting the risk associated with flying golf balls. I have talked to a couple lawyers and law enforcement officers about this.

 

I coach high school golf and have had the following scenarios...

1) kid hits a ball towards a road, a car is driving by and drives right in the ball, it leaves a small dent and scratch on the hood, the kid was not held responsible

2) I hit a t shot way right, walked up and a guy is waiting on me holding my ball, says I hit his car and left a dent on the roof...he called the police, and followed me to my truck while i put my stuff up. The cop showed up and told him it was his risk parking there and I was not liable, the guy did not like this answer.

Basically, you are not legally responsible unless they can prove you were intentionally trying to hit their house. Its like parking at a ball field and your car gets hit by a homerun, who is responsible for that?

[Big Ben]

Hey, when in Rome don’t be surprised by flying meatballs!

[lchang]

> @Warrior42111 said:

> > @BKN1964 said:

> > > @Warrior42111 said:

> > > That's. why I think it may be state by state. I just pulled up my insurance policy and had a co worker pull of there's (different companies). They both state (paraphrased) that the home owner is responsible for the deductible for damage caused by a golf ball being struck in the normal play of a game. Basically I would have to prove that the person did it with intent so, I'd have to see them and recording them aiming and firing away.

> > >

> > > Side note, my buddies policy has an HOA addendum that says he must allow people to get their balls off of his property (not play but remove and drop back into play)

> >

> > I'm no lawyer, but:

> >

> > Sounds like what you're referencing is just a contract between the insured and the insurer. The insurer doesn't really care if the insured has to come up with the money from their own pocket, or get it from the person who caused the damage. Doesn't really address the question of whether the golfer can be held legally liable for the damages, even if just the deductible. I would think the insured could always attempt to collect from the golfer, including suing. Doesn't mean they'll always win. The interesting part for me would be to know whether or not, if it did end up in court, if I'd then be likely to end up having to pay the homeowner's legal fees as well.

>

> So I went down into the thunder-dome of the internet, and the answers vary widely. It looks likes there are 3 most common scenarios.

> 1. The HOA thing I mentioned earlier, basically if you live in a golf course HOA many have a part where they basically say you waive your right to suit the course and/or it's players as it is an assumed risk of purchasing said property.

> 2. House was there before the golf course, or golf course made a change that put the house in a hit zone. This is where I saw the most success in legal cases (but again rulings were all over). But the main argument for the homeowners was that when they purchased it was not a problem / risk and changes made.

> 3. House was built after course, no HOA or insurance statement on liability. this had the greatest spectrum of rulings from the judges. It went from "you bought a house 200 yards on the right side of the fairway, you knew the risk." to "The golfer is in control of what ever happens to their ball."

>

> My personal opinion is that if you buy a house on a golf course you know what you are getting yourself into, and the homeowner should not be legally able to sue. Now if the house was there first or the course modified I think you have a solid case at that point. Finally if someone hits at you intentionally I think it goes from civil to big boy court real quick.

 

Any judge who rules “The golfer is in control of what ever happens to their ball." is obviously not a golfer. I wonder if I could offer as exhibits A thru Z the videos of the foul balls hit by Tiger Woods, (arguably) the best player ever to live, and ask the judge how the homeowner expects amateur golfers to never miss 30 yards right into his house? I think I could prove that human golfers don’t have control of their golf balls. So where does that leave the liability for the course and the homeowner? Or would the judge say, the right thing to do is to never play golf at that course?

[Exactice808]

> @lchang said:

> > @Warrior42111 said:

> > > @BKN1964 said:

> > > > @Warrior42111 said:

> > > > That's. why I think it may be state by state. I just pulled up my insurance policy and had a co worker pull of there's (different companies). They both state (paraphrased) that the home owner is responsible for the deductible for damage caused by a golf ball being struck in the normal play of a game. Basically I would have to prove that the person did it with intent so, I'd have to see them and recording them aiming and firing away.

> > > >

> > > > Side note, my buddies policy has an HOA addendum that says he must allow people to get their balls off of his property (not play but remove and drop back into play)

> > >

> > > I'm no lawyer, but:

> > >

> > > Sounds like what you're referencing is just a contract between the insured and the insurer. The insurer doesn't really care if the insured has to come up with the money from their own pocket, or get it from the person who caused the damage. Doesn't really address the question of whether the golfer can be held legally liable for the damages, even if just the deductible. I would think the insured could always attempt to collect from the golfer, including suing. Doesn't mean they'll always win. The interesting part for me would be to know whether or not, if it did end up in court, if I'd then be likely to end up having to pay the homeowner's legal fees as well.

> >

> > So I went down into the thunder-dome of the internet, and the answers vary widely. It looks likes there are 3 most common scenarios.

> > 1. The HOA thing I mentioned earlier, basically if you live in a golf course HOA many have a part where they basically say you waive your right to suit the course and/or it's players as it is an assumed risk of purchasing said property.

> > 2. House was there before the golf course, or golf course made a change that put the house in a hit zone. This is where I saw the most success in legal cases (but again rulings were all over). But the main argument for the homeowners was that when they purchased it was not a problem / risk and changes made.

> > 3. House was built after course, no HOA or insurance statement on liability. this had the greatest spectrum of rulings from the judges. It went from "you bought a house 200 yards on the right side of the fairway, you knew the risk." to "The golfer is in control of what ever happens to their ball."

> >

> > My personal opinion is that if you buy a house on a golf course you know what you are getting yourself into, and the homeowner should not be legally able to sue. Now if the house was there first or the course modified I think you have a solid case at that point. Finally if someone hits at you intentionally I think it goes from civil to big boy court real quick.

>

> Any judge who rules “The golfer is in control of what ever happens to their ball." is obviously not a golfer. I wonder if I could offer as exhibits A thru Z the videos of the foul balls hit by Tiger Woods, (arguably) the best player ever to live, and ask the judge how the homeowner expects amateur golfers to never miss 30 yards right into his house? I think I could prove that human golfers don’t have control of their golf balls. So where does that leave the liability for the course and the homeowner? Or would the judge say, the right thing to do is to never play golf at that course?

 

So for insurance purposes, The statement is "cause" of loss. negligence is the catalyst to affording coverage. Golfers are "Negligent" when they strike a ball yet the ball goes foul and inadvertently strikes an object. Controller over the ball would not be a factor in an insurance recovery case.

 

Negligence is waived ONCE the individual INTENDS to strike a home (The golfer on the tee box announces that he will try to hit a house). Much like a car accident. The driver is in control of the vehicle yet negligent in striking another car either my distraction of swerving to avoid something.

 

NOW distinguishing FAULT, as I stated before, burden of proof fall on the accuser. On a course and as random as it is, You slice a ball 50 yards right into a house 100 yards away with an obstructed view of the house. CAN YOU surely state that it was YOU that hit the house? ( as usually homes are back 20ft from a fence line with trees and obstructions. What if the homeowner was weed whacking and threw a rock that shattered his window yet your ball manage to land in his property and tried to blame you the golfer? (YES another claims fraud example that ACTUALLY happened).

 

So this situation going to court and even having a judge rule that you are AT fault and direct cause of damage is pretty darn tough Especially in small claims court with smaller recovery amounts.....I For them to try to rule that the golfer is in control of the ball is hilarious but does NOT waive negligence of the golfer to begin with. At that point the personal liability of the golfer would pay or the Homeowners property coverage would pay.