Golf Incident....What do you guys think?

[Driving Hamster]

You know, why is it that homeowners on a golf course don't put plexiglass in the windows facing the course?

 

Plexiglass will fade and yellow over time, especially if it gets a lot of direct sunlight. Who wants that in their home? One needs to put ballistic style (high wind/impact rated) glass in windows once they are broken. It is typically cheaper to replace them with this special glass after they are broken than to build a house with them on the "possible impact side" from the get go.

 

Just yesterday I had to swerve my car to the left to avoid an incoming golf ball coming down the street in my neighborhood. Good thing I drive a small car that is easy to pitch into a turn quickly! The older lady who hit the ball was laughing hysterically when I drove past her. I found it less than amusing.

[MrParr1Noid]

You know, why is it that homeowners on a golf course don't put plexiglass in the windows facing the course?

 

People who live in plexiglass houses should throw stones? :clapping:

[TM golf guy]

At most of the courses I play, the homeowner is responsible for any and all damage to his or her property.

[mantan]

Wow...I give up.

 

In an era where everyone wants to pass a buck and want to blame everyone else I shouldn't be surprised. But the fact that some people live in a world where they could 1) choose a course where they wanted to play 2) stick a tee in the ground and see someone else's personal property while knowing the potential disperion pattern of their shot yet still think they should be completely absolved of any accountability if the ball they strike damages someone else's property is AMAZING.

 

Looking for a some legal way out or blaming the victim for your actions is weak. Nobody forces someone to play a house lined course. Nobody made that golf ball move but the golfer who swung the club. We all think/hope/pray (depending on our skill level) we will keep it in play. You can argue common law, contributory negligence or anything else that helps you sleep at night....but the basic things we teach our kids like 'clean up your own mess' apply here.....

[Swingie]

This is exactly right. My attorneys have talked about this many times and if you buy on the course good luck getting your money without proof of intent. Secure the areas that are vulnerable, case closed.

[HeadonaStick]

Wow...I give up.

 

In an era where everyone wants to pass a buck and want to blame everyone else I shouldn't be surprised. But the fact that some people live in a world where they could 1) choose a course where they wanted to play 2) stick a tee in the ground and see someone else's personal property while knowing the potential disperion pattern of their shot yet still think they should be completely absolved of any accountability if the ball they strike damages someone else's property is AMAZING.

 

Looking for a some legal way out or blaming the victim for your actions is weak. Nobody forces someone to play a house lined course. Nobody made that golf ball move but the golfer who swung the club. We all think/hope/pray (depending on our skill level) we will keep it in play. You can argue common law, contributory negligence or anything else that helps you sleep at night....but the basic things we teach our kids like 'clean up your own mess' apply here.....

How does the homeowner not, at the least, share in the responsibility? In the same way you argue that the golfer chose to tee the ball up, the homeowner chose to purchase a home that is in harm's way. It is in harm's way as it is common, even among very good golfers, to have an errant shot.

 

I asked about plexiglass, but that is apparently inconvenient. Sounds like homeowners want no responsibility either.

 

I hate houses on golf courses anyway. I say let's stop building homes within 300 yards of a golf course, and require fencing on all property lines that border the golf course.

[Blackfinn]

The laws of each state may not be the same, but trust me, in California the golfer is 100% liable if it is more likely than not that the golfer's ball caused the damage. It is immaterial that the homeowner has insurance coverage. The homeowner can collect from the golfer AND also from her insurance company; however, if there is a subornation provision in the policy, the insurance company can seek reimbursement from the homeowner if the insurance company discovers that the homeowner was paid by the golfer. In any event, the golfer pays. The assumption of the risk doctrine in this instance does not apply to the homeowner.

 

If she finds this guy's ball in her house, he's cooked. If someone broke my window I would immediately go out to track down the golfer before getting on my hands and knees looking for the wayward ball. The homewoner did not act unreasonably.

[golfdad907]

My thoughts have always been if the house was there first, they have the right to complain.

 

If the course was there first then tough luck, they shouldn't have bought a house 200 yards down a fairway, I know I wouldn't.

 

I built a new home on a private course in gated community. I located hole I wanted to live on then proceeded to asses where would be the best lot for hackerproofing the house. Ended up 380 from tee on a 545 yard par 5. Never got hit on fly, did have some ID 10 Ts drive carts into the yard, as the 140 deep yard oviously was too far for them to walk from cartpath.

 

Do your homework people...

[JeffreySpicoli]

...assumption of risk...

Assumption of risk pertains to "participants"---players/spectators. Like at a baseball game.

 

I have lived in 2 separate communities that abutted holes on a golf course. Included in the real estate covenant at both communities was a no fault clause relieving the golf course and golfers from any unintentional damage to homeowners property....

While this creates a different circumstance, it illustrates the point that the golfer is liable. Those communities have chosen to indemnify the all golfers from any liabilty --- which they would not have had to do had the liabilty not attached.

 

The above may be true but there are other factors involved.

 

There is a good post here on Golfwrx referencing the NY State Supreme Court ruling in Rinaldo v. McGovern that focused on charges of 1) negligence and 2) failure to warn. The failure to worn is uninteresting for the present discussion as you can't warn a house. However, the court's analysis of the negligence charge is worthy of attention.

 

Here's the court's opinion regarding the negligence charge:

Plaintiffs' cause of action based on the claimed negligence of the defendant golfer is similarly untenable. Although the object of the game of golf is to drive the ball as cleanly and directly as possible toward its ultimate intended goal (the hole), the possibility that the ball will fly off in another direction is a risk inherent in the game. Contrary to the view of the dissenters below, the presence of such a risk does not, by itself, import tort liability (see, 167 AD2d 942, 944 [Callahan, J.P., and Balio, J., dissenting]). The essence of tort liability is the failure to take reasonable steps, where possible, to minimize the chance of harm. Thus, to establish liability in tort, there must be both the existence of a recognizable risk and some basis for concluding that the harm flowing from the consummation of that risk was reasonably preventable.

 

Since "'even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional "hook" or "slice"'" (Jenks v McGranahan, supra, at 479, quoting Nussbaum v Lacopo, supra, at 319), it cannot be said that the risk of a mis-hit golf ball is a fully preventable occurrence. To the contrary, even with the utmost concentration and the "tedious preparation" that often accompanies a golfer's shot (see, Nussbaum v Lacopo, supra, at 319), there is no guarantee that the ball will be lofted onto the correct path. For that reason, we have held that the mere fact that a golf ball did not travel in the intended direction does not establish a viable negligence claim (Jenks v McGranahan, supra, at 479). To provide an actionable theory of liability, a person injured by a mis-hit golf ball must affirmatively show that the golfer failed to exercise due care by adducing proof, for example, that the golfer "aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm" (Nussbaum v Lacopo, supra, at 319).

 

No such proof was adduced here.

 

So, this discussion will come down to case law in particular states and how those states have defined negligence in similar situations. New York, as shown above, will probably not hold a golfer responsible for a mishit golf ball without the proof required by this decision.

[DemolitionMan]

The laws of each state may not be the same, but trust me, in California the golfer is 100% liable if it is more likely than not that the golfer's ball caused the damage. It is immaterial that the homeowner has insurance coverage. The homeowner can collect from the golfer AND also from her insurance company; however, if there is a subornation provision in the policy, the insurance company can seek reimbursement from the homeowner if the insurance company discovers that the homeowner was paid by the golfer. In any event, the golfer pays. The assumption of the risk doctrine in this instance does not apply to the homeowner.

 

If she finds this guy's ball in her house, he's cooked. If someone broke my window I would immediately go out to track down the golfer before getting on my hands and knees looking for the wayward ball. The homewoner did not act unreasonably.

 

Please, enough of the 'trust me'. You are flat out wrong. About six years ago I played with some flat out hacks. Four broken windows in one year by my playing partners; serious bad luck. It was all about attitude at first so one homeowner who was pretty nice about it got his window paid for right then and there as we peeled off hundred dollar bills. The guy then gave my buddy a pail of new ProV1s he had been collecting. Good deal all round. The other three homeowners were complete jerks about it so we gave them my lawyer's number and drove off telling them good luck. One didn't even bother to contact the lawyer (smart, saved a lot of time and money), one threatened suit and after some back and forth went away knowing there was no way they would win, and the third (quite a hot head) got a lawyer, wasted everyone's time, dragged it out, and then lost the first day in court on summary judgment.

 

All in California buddy. Moral of the story is don't be an idiot and buy a house where it can be pelted by golf balls, but if you insist, then do something to protect yourself with trees, better windows, etc....and if that still doesn't work and your window gets broken, then be nice. No one is out aiming at houses trying to break windows, so be nice. Threaten a lawsuit and heaven have mercy on you because my lawyer is one of the biggest Word not allowed$&^$*@ I have ever known.

 

As this thread has proven is nothing is 100% certain in these matters. Different States, different Counties, different courts, different judges, different lawyers, different houses, different circumstances, and different people all have a factor. Golfers and homeowners have won and lost.

[kgk]

I hate houses on golf courses anyway. I say let's stop building homes within 300 yards of a golf course, and require fencing on all property lines that border the golf course.

 

I don't mind houses on courses, but they should be reasonably out of the way. Putting your house at the corner of a dogleg so that people have to hit over it is STUPID and it should be their fault if their house gets hit. There are courses in Houston that I refuse to play anymore because of this exact situation.

[bulldog8b]

If she couldn't produce the ball I would laugh at her and go on my way. Besides, this question has been gone over a million times and the courts have said that the golfer did not intentionally hit the ball at the house (unless he did) and that the homeowner assumed that risk by buying a house there. And a sign saying it is the golfer's responsibility does not make it so. I can put up any sign in my yard I want, doesn't mean anyone else has to abide by it.

[bulldog8b]

The laws of each state may not be the same, but trust me, in California the golfer is 100% liable if it is more likely than not that the golfer's ball caused the damage. It is immaterial that the homeowner has insurance coverage. The homeowner can collect from the golfer AND also from her insurance company; however, if there is a subornation provision in the policy, the insurance company can seek reimbursement from the homeowner if the insurance company discovers that the homeowner was paid by the golfer. In any event, the golfer pays. The assumption of the risk doctrine in this instance does not apply to the homeowner.

If she finds this guy's ball in her house, he's cooked. If someone broke my window I would immediately go out to track down the golfer before getting on my hands and knees looking for the wayward ball. The homewoner did not act unreasonably.

 

That is called insurance fraud.

 

How can you say somebody that buys a house on a golf course is not assuming risk?

[adamblanks85]

Morally Speaking: If you cause an accident to occur on the golf course you should do the utmost to rectify the situation

Legally Speaking:During a typical round of golf hitting a golf ball into a window or onto real property while playing golf is not a tortious act. If there is no tort then the golfer can not be liable for any damages.

Reality talking: If a homeowner takes a golfer to court over a broken window then maybe they have other issues. Litigation is not cheap even at small claims court. You go to court to recover a few hundred dollars then you cut your nose to spite your face.

 

Liability has nothing to do with what's morally right or wrong. There are a very specific set of requirement for someone to have a case whatsoever.

 

Let's say a golf course had a net down the left side of a hole which protected a neighborhood on the other side. After a length of time a portion of the net fell down. A golfer hits an errant shot which goes through the unmended portion of the net which hits a man watering his lawn giving him a head injury and subsequent hospitalization. This man can sue the golf course for negligence and most likely win but he can not sue the golfer.

[Tighthead]

Wow...I give up.

 

In an era where everyone wants to pass a buck and want to blame everyone else I shouldn't be surprised. But the fact that some people live in a world where they could 1) choose a course where they wanted to play 2) stick a tee in the ground and see someone else's personal property while knowing the potential disperion pattern of their shot yet still think they should be completely absolved of any accountability if the ball they strike damages someone else's property is AMAZING.

 

Looking for a some legal way out or blaming the victim for your actions is weak. Nobody forces someone to play a house lined course. Nobody made that golf ball move but the golfer who swung the club. We all think/hope/pray (depending on our skill level) we will keep it in play. You can argue common law, contributory negligence or anything else that helps you sleep at night....but the basic things we teach our kids like 'clean up your own mess' apply here.....

 

How does the homeowner not, at the least, share in the responsibility? In the same way you argue that the golfer chose to tee the ball up, the homeowner chose to purchase a home that is in harm's way. It is in harm's way as it is common, even among very good golfers, to have an errant shot.

 

 

If the house moves and hits the golfball, the homeowner is responsible. If the golfball is the moving object, the golfer is responsible.

[bassman1308]

One of the members in our group hit a big slice that broke the window in a house next to the fairway. The owner came onto the course, stating he was a lawyer and preceeded to let my friend know that he would have to pay for the damage. After a couple minutes of his heated rantings, the lawyer said, I hope you've learned something today. My friend said: yea, if I use a stronger grip, I don't slice the ball nearly as bad. : - ).

[blkdiamond]

Is anyone that has posted in this thread a lawyer, or is this just a bunch of opinions?

 

My opinion, if you hit a golf ball and it causes damage to property, be a man (or woman), own up to it and pay to have it fixed because that is the decent thing to do, regardless of the law.

[HeadonaStick]

Wow...I give up.

 

In an era where everyone wants to pass a buck and want to blame everyone else I shouldn't be surprised. But the fact that some people live in a world where they could 1) choose a course where they wanted to play 2) stick a tee in the ground and see someone else's personal property while knowing the potential disperion pattern of their shot yet still think they should be completely absolved of any accountability if the ball they strike damages someone else's property is AMAZING.

 

Looking for a some legal way out or blaming the victim for your actions is weak. Nobody forces someone to play a house lined course. Nobody made that golf ball move but the golfer who swung the club. We all think/hope/pray (depending on our skill level) we will keep it in play. You can argue common law, contributory negligence or anything else that helps you sleep at night....but the basic things we teach our kids like 'clean up your own mess' apply here.....

 

How does the homeowner not, at the least, share in the responsibility? In the same way you argue that the golfer chose to tee the ball up, the homeowner chose to purchase a home that is in harm's way. It is in harm's way as it is common, even among very good golfers, to have an errant shot.

 

 

If the house moves and hits the golfball, the homeowner is responsible. If the golfball is the moving object, the golfer is responsible.

No. That really doesn't address the question I asked, and I'm not even sure it is correct.

[HeadonaStick]

Is anyone that has posted in this thread a lawyer, or is this just a bunch of opinions?

 

My opinion, if you hit a golf ball and it causes damage to property, be a man (or woman), own up to it and pay to have it fixed because that is the decent thing to do, regardless of the law.

What do you think lawyers post? Go look at the thread I linked; it is nothing but lawyers all arguing the same points that are in this thread.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

Is anyone that has posted in this thread a lawyer, or is this just a bunch of opinions?

 

My opinion, if you hit a golf ball and it causes damage to property, be a man (or woman), own up to it and pay to have it fixed because that is the decent thing to do, regardless of the law.

What do you think lawyers post? Go look at the thread I linked; it is nothing but lawyers all arguing the same points that are in this thread.

Legal speak: deny deny deny deny and deny some more. "It wasnt me" To make a long story short the resident asumes responsibility

[JBinAZ]

As a very young man I learned that golf was a game of "Integrity". Integrity imho means many things, one of those is to take responsibility for one's own actions. If I break a window, I pay for it.

 

Not sure how from a point of view of "Integrity" that this is an issue or discussion.

 

Enjoy

[rwhite05]

Obviously there are many different opinions about this so I'll include my two cents.

 

I agree with the people that said if you break something, you step up and take responsibility for it but not in this case.

 

I fully believe that if you CHOOSE to build/buy a house on a golf course you are assuming the risk of any damage to your property or persons. It should be basic common knowledge that your home has an increased chance of being hit with a golf ball then "Mr. Jones" home 10 miles down the road. By living closer to a golf course, you are accepting that fact - and paying higher insurance deductibles too, I'm sure.

 

Some people made the argument that you are not technically assuming the risk because you are not a "participant" like in other sports. Well, what about the boaters that sit outside of the ball park in the lake in San Francisco waiting for Barry Bonds to hit a home run out of the park so they can get it. Would Mr. Bonds be responsible for any damage he caused to their boat or to their persons if he hit someone because technically they are not a "participant" either? I don't think so.

 

I don't understand how that would be any different on a golf course. Obviously, it is no ones intention to hit a home but if the "Pros" only hit 65% of the fairways, it is not unreasonable for an amatuer to hit the odd bad shot - thus putting any homes in that proximity at an increased risk.

 

The golfer will win this dispute 99% of the time.

[777twist]

As a very young man I learned that golf was a game of "Integrity". Integrity imho means many things, one of those is to take responsibility for one's own actions. If I break a window, I pay for it.

 

Not sure how from a point of view of "Integrity" that this is an issue or discussion.

 

Enjoy

 

 

Look, I have a net out back and if I was to miss the net and hit a car or break something in the house behind me, then of course I would have the "Integrity" to pay for the damage.

 

But these people live on a golf course...shoot even the people who live just off the course (where a street runs the length of the hole) should expect balls to hit their homes, cars, etc... Those who live on the golf course! Well, F' them!!! I hate homes on courses, and although I think it would suck to have my home pelted with balls all the time, I also wouldn't have my home on a bomb testing range and not expect a shockwave to take out my windows.

 

I live in Florida, so I know at some point a hurricane is going to do some serious damage. People in California know earthquakes are going to destroy their homes. All of us have insurace based on where we live...why should these people be any different. I'm sorry that the deductable is going to cost you, but there are other things that can be done. And FYI, I think the golf course is still more responsible then the golfer. Like the person said above, even pros can't hit 100% fairways and even their balls will go OB. These courses know they don't have pros playing on them. And they can put up more trees to help. I play a course where their are very few trees protecting the homes across the street...I'm sure the home owners don't want too many trees cuz then it blocks their view, so if one of my balls goes slicing into their property...sorry, I'm all about the rules, but that's just plain stupid to live on a golf course and not expect that.

[blade_man]

I love on the course too but that doesn't take too long! I live on the course and hate keeping my grass like the course keeps theirs! That takes a while! :clapping: Thanks for making my day! It is good to laugh and love.

 

I love on a course...

 

Do you ever have problems with bug bites or anything like that?

[blkdiamond]

I am glad that I don't live on a course where you all play golf at. What ever happened to doing the right thing?

 

Using the logic of the majority of those here you can justify practically anything.

 

-His face hit my fist.

-His car got in the way of my car.

-The window in that house got in the way of my slice, I mean drive.

[JeffreySpicoli]

I am glad that I don't live on a course where you all play golf at. What ever happened to doing the right thing?

 

Using the logic of the majority of those here you can justify practically anything.

 

-His face hit my fist.

-His car got in the way of my car.

-The window in that house got in the way of my slice, I mean drive.

 

You should be careful concerning your attempts to criticize the logic of others.

 

This post of yours contains several logical fallacies. Go here and pay special attention to the sections entitled "Faulty generalizations" & "Red herring fallacies." You should be able to identify some of the applicable fallacies that you committed.

[ijuswanagolf]

Don't these people know what they're getting into when they buy a house on the right side of the fairway, about 240yds from the whites??!!

 

I flew helicopters in the National Guard and there was nothing around the airport that we flew from…………then they built homes all around the airport and in short order complaints flooded in about the noise. Apparently they don't know what they are doing.

[bulldog8b]

Don't these people know what they're getting into when they buy a house on the right side of the fairway, about 240yds from the whites??!!

 

I flew helicopters in the National Guard and there was nothing around the airport that we flew from…………then they built homes all around the airport and in short order complaints flooded in about the noise. Apparently they don't know what they are doing.

 

 

 

We had a similar problem in my city w/ people complaining about the noise of trains. The fact that the train tracks were built around 1900 and their houses around 2000 somehow didn't factor into their decisions at all.

 

Anyhoo, I agree w/ all of you saying that people should do the right thing and pay for the window if they break it. If I broke a window and the homeowner came out and was cool about it, I would have no problem paying them. But if they came out screaming and yelling, it would be a different story. In that case I would say too bad, you built a house on a golf course, what did you expect? And I would have stacks of case law to back me up.

 

So maybe that is the answer. If you are going to ignore the obvious risks, at least be nice when the inevitable happens. That way maybe things will work out in your favor because the golfer morally should pay, but legally he does not have to so being nice is probably the only way you are going to not have to pay to fix your own window.

[rrkman]

Personally, if I think my ball did the damage, I would probably pay for it. But it also depends on the attitude of the homeowner. While playing in S.C. once, a member of our foursome cut the corner on a dogleg left....the problem was that he also hooked it and it went through the tree line and put a very small dent into their beat up SUV. The lady came running out yelling, screaming, cursing, etc....about us being idiots and what if it would have hit one of her kids. This is where I almost lost it. Do you really think that living on the inside corner of a dogleg is a safe place to raise kids? Everyone has the right to live where ever they want to but think about it before you decide.

 

So, in most situations, if you did it, pay for it....and I also want everyone to understand a couple other concepts....

 

1. The land that these homes are on is private property......meaning stay out.

2. The land that the golf course is on is also (usually) private property.....meaning if you are not golfing, stay out. Don't let your kid wander around out there, hitting balls between foursomes. Don't take your dog for a walk down the cart path.

 

Also, I have one question for the homeowners....why would you want to live where every 15 minutes, a group of 4 people drive (or walk) through your backyard? I get tired of seeing/hearing the kids that live behind us....I don't know how long I could handle the morons that I run into on a golf course.

[go-rebels]

I own a home on a par 4 with a 190 yd layup to a lake and a 270 yard carry. My home is 90 yards to the right of the OB line about 160 yards from the tee. I've had 4 broken windows in 8 years.

 

My deductable will not cover the cost of the window replacement, but if the golfer has renter's or homeowner's insurance, the damage is 100% covered by his insurance company and his/her rates will NOT go up unless he/her files MANY claims for broken windows.

 

In one case I was in my house when a window was broke. I retrieved the ball and calmly asked the group walking down the fairway if anyone hit the ball. All in the foursome were part of a big Applebee's management outing and I approached one guy who I saw drop a ball near my OB line. All other guys played their balls from the center and left side of the course. This Manager (as my wife found out after the round) denied hitting the shot. Let's say that I've never patronized an Applebee's again. I'll never forget that one.

 

************

 

My kid had a bunch of friends over the house for a 9 year old birthday party. One kid threw a hard rubber ball through a small breakfastnook window. Since we invited the kids over the house, and set-up the game to play in the backyard, am I responsible for the broken window? My homeowner's insurance would not cover it due to the deductable. His parents had it covered by their homeowners insurance 100%. Similar situation... same result.