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

[LP28]

No ball, no evidence!! Just kidding. That's a tough one, I'm still thinking about it..................

[BILL12x]

If you want the benefit of living on a golf course, (higher prop. values, view, nobody building right behind you, etc.), than accept the drawbacks as well.

 

If you live on a golf course, your house WILL be hit by a ball. Tough luck. Deal with it. A reasonable person understands this, even if they are not a golfer.

 

If homeowners win suits over this, every fairway will be lined with nets 300 feet high, or all courses will close except those with no homes on them.

 

That beautiful fairway lot your home is on? Imagine a road down the middle of that fairway, with 3 story condos built on either side, looking down into your yard.

[LP28]

No ball, no evidence!! Just kidding. That's a tough one, I'm still thinking about it..................

 

............OK, I think it's the property owners burden not the golfer. If you buy a house just off the fairway of a golf course(right about 250 yards from the tee box!!) you better expect to have a broken window or two. And you can't really get mad when it happens. Same thing happen to a friend of mine that has a condo at Pinehurst - ball through the window and almost in the coffee mug!! The guy that hit it was sorry but he didn't pony-up any money, it was my friend that paid to have the window replaced(as he should b/c that's the risk of having property at that location). This person should have taken into consideration before buying, that not ALL golfers hit the ball down the middle ALL the time!! Next time buy a home next to the tee box so your chances of having a broken window are a lot less...............'sorry ma'am can I play through'!!

[go-rebels]

If you want the benefit of living on a golf course, (higher prop. values, view, nobody building right behind you, etc.), than accept the drawbacks as well.

 

I do.

 

If you live on a golf course, your house WILL be hit by a ball. Tough luck. Deal with it. A reasonable person understands this, even if they are not a golfer.

 

I do.

 

If homeowners win suits over this, every fairway will be lined with nets 300 feet high, or all courses will close except those with no homes on them.

 

You know there will be no "blanket" ruling on this, so this comment makes no sense.

 

That beautiful fairway lot your home is on? Imagine a road down the middle of that fairway, with 3 story condos built on either side, looking down into your yard.

 

Yea, right.

 

My point is that all parties can agree to have the insurance company cover the damages, rather than any one individual. Isn't that why we buy insurance.

[krustyburger]

If you want the benefit of living on a golf course, (higher prop. values, view, nobody building right behind you, etc.), than accept the drawbacks as well.

 

I do.

 

If you live on a golf course, your house WILL be hit by a ball. Tough luck. Deal with it. A reasonable person understands this, even if they are not a golfer.

 

I do.

 

If homeowners win suits over this, every fairway will be lined with nets 300 feet high, or all courses will close except those with no homes on them.

 

You know there will be no "blanket" ruling on this, so this comment makes no sense.

 

That beautiful fairway lot your home is on? Imagine a road down the middle of that fairway, with 3 story condos built on either side, looking down into your yard.

 

Yea, right.

 

My point is that all parties can agree to have the insurance company cover the damages, rather than any one individual. Isn't that why we buy insurance.

 

I don't buy insurance for the off chance that I might hit a house with my ball.

[go-rebels]

I only buy insurance for the "off-chance".

[skizix]

Here's an intersting twist: At one of my local muni courses, there are signs all over the course (like most courses), stating, "damage to property or injury to persons are the responsibility of the golfer." However, in the parking lot (which is located between the range and the 18th fairway), there are signs stating something like, "errant golf ball landing zone -- park at your own risk."...suggesting that if your car OR your person is damaged from someone's bad shot, it is your own problem, not the person who hit the shot, or the course. Now before you bring up the "participant" factor, realize that the clubhouse has a large restaurant that is open to the public at large, and regularly hosts events like weddings. And btw, there is literally nowhere else within a mile to park and access the facility.

 

Total BS, IMHO, and a clear indication that the various signs are merely moralistic "suggestions", put there to protect the **course** from any hassles (meaning: yah, they could care less what happens to the golfer or homeowner or bystander). But I'm sure this condradiction would actually kill the course's case if anything ever went to court.

 

As for what I'd do...I think it does come down to the homeowner's attitude. I do think the responisibility is shared b/t golfer and homeowner. But if they are cool, I'm sure I'd offer to pay (or if it is some gigantic, great-room window, i.e. mucho $$$, I'd suggest they file a claim, and I'd offer to pay the deductible). OTOH, if they were a total a-hole, I think I would take a defensive stance, i.e. whaddya expect, living where you do? Put up a freakin' net, jerk! (some people with houses on my home course have put up there own nets).

 

To the OP: wouldn't you have heard shattering glass? Whenever I hit a crazy banana towards any houses, I stop, cup my ear, and listen carefully. If I hear nothing, or a "clunk", I move on with my day. If I were to hear shattering glass or screams/moans (fortunately never happened to date)...time to go over, see what happened, and prepare to own up.

[skizix]

As for the true legal implications...consider this hypothetical scenario:

 

A course I sometimes play has four different holes with nothing but a chainlink fence separating pretty narrow fairways from busy, four-lane streets that run parallel to the fairways. I always get a little uptight on those holes, and try to wait for a break in heavy traffic.

 

So...what if you hit a shot into traffic, it hits someone in a convertible in the face, they freak out, swerve, and cause a ten car pileup. Just for kicks, let's say someone's killed, and another paralized -- not to be morbid, just saying what if damages were in the millions?

 

What then? In that case, it's not like someone who chose to live on a golf course. What are you going to say, "tough luck, you chose to drive next to the course"? These are major urban thoroughfares, with no warning signs, and if you did't know the area, you'd never know you were coming up on this situation until it was too late to turn off.

 

I guess in this case, if the above is true, the golfer would in fact have no tort liability (but an awfully heavy load on their mind...and in their pants!). Would the golfer really get off scott-free? I'm guessing the course would be the ones held responsible (talking: strictly legally) in the end.

 

What do you think?

[JeffreySpicoli]

As for the true legal implications...consider this hypothetical scenario:

 

A course I sometimes play has four different holes with nothing but a chainlink fence separating pretty narrow fairways from busy, four-lane streets that run parallel to the fairways. I always get a little uptight on those holes, and try to wait for a break in heavy traffic.

 

So...what if you hit a shot into traffic, it hits someone in a convertible in the face, they freak out, swerve, and cause a ten car pileup. Just for kicks, let's say someone's killed, and another paralized -- not to be morbid, just saying what if damages were in the millions?

 

What then? In that case, it's not like someone who chose to live on a golf course. What are you going to say, "tough luck, you chose to drive next to the course"? These are major urban thoroughfares, with no warning signs, and if you did't know the area, you'd never know you were coming up on this situation until it was too late to turn off.

 

I guess in this case, if the above is true, the golfer would in fact have no tort liability (but an awfully heavy load on their mind...and in their pants!). Would the golfer really get off scott-free? I'm guessing the course would be the ones held responsible (talking: strictly legally) in the end.

 

What do you think?

 

Why not look at what the NY State Supreme Court thought?

 

I posted about this upthread:

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1184771

[777twist]

As for the true legal implications...consider this hypothetical scenario:

 

A course I sometimes play has four different holes with nothing but a chainlink fence separating pretty narrow fairways from busy, four-lane streets that run parallel to the fairways. I always get a little uptight on those holes, and try to wait for a break in heavy traffic.

 

So...what if you hit a shot into traffic, it hits someone in a convertible in the face, they freak out, swerve, and cause a ten car pileup. Just for kicks, let's say someone's killed, and another paralized -- not to be morbid, just saying what if damages were in the millions?

 

What then? In that case, it's not like someone who chose to live on a golf course. What are you going to say, "tough luck, you chose to drive next to the course"? These are major urban thoroughfares, with no warning signs, and if you did't know the area, you'd never know you were coming up on this situation until it was too late to turn off.

 

I guess in this case, if the above is true, the golfer would in fact have no tort liability (but an awfully heavy load on their mind...and in their pants!). Would the golfer really get off scott-free? I'm guessing the course would be the ones held responsible (talking: strictly legally) in the end.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Wow, your lucky... a chainlink fence would be awesome!!! I play a course that has bushes taking up a good portion of the right side of the tee box (actually about 10 yards in front of the tee box). There is water and it's only about 230 - 240 away... The fairway can be struck by aiming a bit left, but I would guess that 90 % of the golfers who can pull off a fade will do one here, because the fairway does go right behind the bush. Well, to the right of that is a 4 land road!!! Now, how many times do these guys who will try the fade actually get a fade and not a slice? And what about the guys who try and hit straight but always slice. Then you have the water involved straight and to the left, so you really want to fade. Anyway, I think that's a hole that should have a net. I have hit more than a few balls into that road and it's a sucky feeling. I would hate to hit a car and make them crash.

 

The worst part about a hole like that is you step up to the tee already nervous because you don't want to slice...and no doubt you probably will. If you aren't hitting confident, then you are probably going to hack one to the right.

 

That's a case where I don't think the course took enough responsibility to keep balls from going out there.

[Blues Golfer]

If I'm reading this correctly: http://www.abanet.org/rppt/publications/ma...7/11-2devl.html

 

It just depends on the jurisdiction, judge, and good or bad luck. Courts all over the country have ruled in opposite directions for different reasons.

 

It seems that as long as a golfer is not trying to hit the house, he's not responsible legally, and dragging him into court is a risk because it's far from settled who will win. A homeowner may win, but the cost of getting the judgement will be far more than any damage to a house, except a stained glass window.

 

I once played with a foursome, and one guy pulled his drive into the street and hit a moving car. Awhile later a course employee came out and asked if anyone had hit a car with his ball. I didn't know the guys I was playing with...so I didn't say anything. The other three said no. Another hour later or so later, the same guy comes out and asks again. Same thing, they all said no, I didn't say anything.

 

I felt somewhat guilty about not saying anything, but what's the difference between a golf ball and a door ding? With a golf ball, you know who did it. With a door ding, you just swear a few times and then forget about it. You own a car, it's gonna happen.

 

My point is, it's opportunistic to come after a golfer for hitting a house with a ball. A homeowner is looking to stick someone else with the bill for unintinentional damage to a house that was probably built too close the course, and / or should have been protected with landscape or by some other means. Maybe the owner should have LEFT THE TREES THERE THAT USED TO BE THERE BEFORE HE OCCUPIED HIS HOUSE, or put up a screen, net, or put in trees to prevent something so obvious from happening?

 

Most homeowners put a front door with a lock on their house to prevent people from coming in. Why can homeowners obstinately refuse to take measures to protect the back of their homes, and then stick me with the bill for their obstinance?

 

Think about it. A police officer comes to a house, takes a report on a burglery, and the cop says "you better replace the door, the burgler took that too."

 

Owner: "Oh, no, I don't have a door on the front of my house."

 

Officer: "Well, maybe you should get one to protect yourself."

 

Owner: "I would, but it would ruin the view and cost money. When I bought the house I didn't see anyone in the yard, so I figured it was safe. You guys can always come out, take a report, and then catch the burgler."

 

Yea, that's a good way to protect your property.

[go-rebels]

I, like many homeowners, have taken reasonable precautions to protect my house from wildly errant golf balls. There are at least six mature live oak trees that are at least 40ft tall between my house and the tee box. In addition, we have a row of cyprus trees that will usually stop anything that is lower than 25ft that somehow gets through the oaks. But occasionally a ball will get through everything and hit the house, and on some rare occasions a window will be broken.

 

The golfer and I both have paid for insurance but only the golfer can make a claim and have it 100% paid by his insurance company (there is no deductable in his case). It is just this type of accident for which we purchased insurance. Given the choice of an individual paying for the repair, or the insurance company, I'll choose the insurance company every time.

[Nitsua]

This is akin to parking your car at a baseball complex and having the batter assume responsibility for a foul ball breaking a windshield. All the signs in the world are not going to get a court to agree.

 

Signs on the course saying that the golfer is responsible to pay for damage are just the courses trying to appease the homeowners. The homeowner assumes the risk of living on a golf course, and unless the damage was done on purpose, the courts will say the same thing. I have lived on 2 different courses, and unless the player settled and wrote a check for it, no homeowner I know of was ever reimbursed via the courts.

 

One of my neighbors was in his yard when a ball hit his patio, he tossed the ball back out on the fairway, and told the guy to get some lessons. The guy that hit it, dropped another ball and fired it at his place, breaking a window. I imagine that had my buddy pressed the issue, the courts would have found the player at fault. I am sure the player realized this, as he came right over, apologized, and gave my buddy everything in his wallet, $600.

[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.

 

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.

 

Then I guess the jugdes who ruled against the golfers were flat out wrong as well. Thanks for the insight - I'll let the judges know they screwed it up. But seriously, having actually been involved in such cases more than once, the homeowner prevails. In one case, the HOA which owned the golf course was brought in by the homeowner as a defendant on the theory that the course layout was negligently designed. Result: the tee box was moved so drives were not as likely to hit the homes on the right and a new out of bounds line was established on the right. These types of cases used to be defended on the doctrine of the homeowner "coming to the nuisance" and therefore having to assume some or all of the irsk of damage due to an errant golf ball. But no more.

 

As for "insurance fraud" - actually no. If the homeowner collects against its carrier first in California, the defendant golfer cannot use that information as a defense - its called the collateral source rule and the fact of insurance is not admissible. The golfer still has to pay regardless of whether there is insurance. Under the homeowner's policy, he or she has a duty to then report the judicial recovery or settlement from the golfer to allow the carrier to pursue its right to seek reimbursement from the homewoner. That's a matter between the HO and the carrier. If the homeowner fails to notify the carrier, it's not insurance fraud, its breach of the insurance policy. Typically, insurance fraud is where you knowingly submit a false claim. Of course, litigation should be avoided by the golfer offering to pay the deductible and to compensate the HO for any inconvenience resulting from the golf ball damage.

[tseyepro]

I live next to 6th hole on muni. Takes a shot about 60 yards past the green and over a six foot fence to hit the house. Once in 23 years had a broken window. I called the course and they paid for it without problem. If not, would have used my homeowners ins. Golfers are probably more understanding. The non golfers that buy course side houses are probably more difficult. I was in a foursome where a golfer rattled one off the side of a house with no property damage but the homeowner came out yelling! You live next to a golf course!