Broken Window or other damage caused by golf ball

[TheBUNKY]

for homes located "on" golf courses

I've heard many arguments on this topic. Did a search of this forum but did not pull up anything so I'll pose the question.

Who is responsible for damages when a golfer hits a ball that in turn hits a house causing damage when playing a course that is located around a residential area?

In most cases if you ask the golfer, he will say it is the homeowner and should be covered on their homeowners insurance.

In other cases if you ask the homeowner he will say the golfer is responsible.

Does it vary on the location or course rules? Say the course was there first and then the houses were built around the course, does that matter?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

[Placebo]

IMO the person hitting the ball is responsible for whatever the outcome is. If the outcome is a window getting broke in a house on the course and I hit that ball then I am responsible for fixing the window. If the owner tells me, "oh its okay the insurance will take care of it", then lucky me. Either way I walk away with a clean conscience and sleep like a baby at night. :)

[TheBUNKY]

One of these days, I am going to get my camera out and post pics of our course and the fairways which are lined with houses. So far, I've had good luck not causing any damage but I have had a couple of close calls out there. Mostly just hit rooftops and such.

 

We have a hole, number 14. A Par 4 of about 350-375 yards that is a dogleg right. The green can be reached from the tee if you take a line over the houses. The houses are in a cul de sac. If you were in a car and you were driving toward the cul de sac, the green sits behind the houses that are around the cul de sac, if that makes any sense. We have a local rule on the course that does not allow the golfer to take this line over the houses to try to reach the green, but if you get a certain group out there and a certain few cold beers in that group, somebody is going to go for it.

 

All in all, the course looks a lot tighter than what it really is. Once you get out there, it really isn't that bad unless you try to cut some corners here and there. I still try not to play any fairway woods out there unless I just have to and have room to bail out or if I mishit one it will have room on either side that I lose it on. This has made me a better long iron player.

[Placebo]

Lol remind me to never, ever take my brother-in-law to that course!

[arkstorm]

IMO the person hitting the ball is responsible for whatever the outcome is. If the outcome is a window getting broke in a house on the course and I hit that ball then I am responsible for fixing the window. If the owner tells me, "oh its okay the insurance will take care of it", then lucky me. Either way I walk away with a clean conscience and sleep like a baby at night. ;)

 

Placebo,

 

Your opinion happens to be the correct answer under the law. There is no viable "House on the Golf Course" defense. You can't claim the owner was asking for it when he bought that beautiful house on the 12th fairway. Also, the existence of property insurance is NEVER determinative in assessing liability. You can’t even mention the existence of an insurance policy in court except as evidence to establish ownership. There are no ifs and or buts about it, if you break someone’s window with your golf ball… run away like a child and deny it was you… I mean break out your checkbook and pony up.

[Placebo]

Oddly enough a situation similar to this nearly came into play this last Saturday. I was at my local course practicing on the driving range trying to get my new swing grooved. I was hitting my R510 and one shot I hit towards the hosel and sent it left and way high. As soon as I hit it I saw an SUV in the corner of my eye making a bee-line to right where my ball was heading if it cleared the net, which it did. At first I muttered uh-oh out loud, and then I just kind of chuckled to myself as I started thinking of this thread also hoping that if it did hit the car that noone got hurt. It seemed like time stood still as I watched the car head down the road and my ball clear the net coming down what looked to be right on top of it. At this point I was foreseeing the humbling moment as the driver pulled into the parking lot asking if anyone hit that ball and I would have to raise my hand and take responsibility which I was fully prepared to do. The ball came down and brake lights followed, then the ball bounced a mile in the air and the brake lights let up as the car kept going. Whew! That was a close one!!!

[oldgoalie]

IMO the person hitting the ball is responsible for whatever the outcome is. If the outcome is a window getting broke in a house on the course and I hit that ball then I am responsible for fixing the window. If the owner tells me, "oh its okay the insurance will take care of it", then lucky me. Either way I walk away with a clean conscience and sleep like a baby at night. ;)

 

Placebo,

 

Your opinion happens to be the correct answer under the law. There is no viable "House on the Golf Course" defense. You can't claim the owner was asking for it when he bought that beautiful house on the 12th fairway. Also, the existence of property insurance is NEVER determinative in assessing liability. You can’t even mention the existence of an insurance policy in court except as evidence to establish ownership. There are no ifs and or buts about it, if you break someone’s window with your golf ball… run away like a child and deny it was you… I mean break out your checkbook and pony up.

 

Are you sure about this? Golf Digest just had an article about this and they seemed to indicate that in most cases it has been found to be the homeowners responsibility. Here is the link: http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf...worsthomes.html

 

They do say there are some cases where the homeowner prevails, but it is rare.

[arkstorm]

Are you sure about this? Golf Digest just had an article about this and they seemed to indicate that in most cases it has been found to be the homeowners responsibility. Here is the link: http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf...worsthomes.html

 

They do say there are some cases where the homeowner prevails, but it is rare.

 

Yes, I am absolutely sure about this!

 

The article you referenced, at best, improperly amalgamates a number of legal theories (E.g., nuisance, personal injury, property damage, etc.) which are independent in jurisprudence and which follow independent concepts. However the article is so rife with innacuracies and misreading or misapplying of case law that, frankly, I would be shocked if an actual attorney had anything to do with writing it. For instance, the section, "What if I accidentally hit the person who lives at a golf course home?" contains the following passage, "Even the failure to yell "Fore!'' is not considered reckless conduct, ruled the California Court of Appeals. This decision was upheld in the case of Nussbaum v. Lacopo (a homeowner was struck by a ball from a 15-year-old who was trespassing on the course and did not yell "Fore!"). The New York Court of Appeals wrote, "These invasions are the annoyances which must be accepted by one seeking to reside in the serenity and semi-isolation of such a pastoral setting.''

 

Actually, the decision in Nussbaum dealt with whether the homeowner could sue the golf course, not the golfer. And regardless of what the California Court of Appeals ruled about yelling "fore" and recklesness, A New York state court cannot uphold a California state court decision. Also, recklessness was not even at issue in Nussbaum. (Where an adjoining landowner sought to recover against a golf course for personal injuries resulting from a shot from the course. The injured plaintiff sought recovery under theories of nuisance and negligence in design. Nussbaum's residence was situated on land abutting the thirteenth hole of defendant's country club, with approximately 20 to 30 feet of rough containing 45 to 60 foot high trees between the fairway and plaintiff's patio. The proper line of flight from the tee to the green on the thirteenth hole was at a substantial angle from the property line. A trespasser on the golf course hit a shot from the thirteenth tee which hooked and allegedly hit Nussbaum, who was on his patio at the time.)

 

In the interest of setting the record straight in light of the grossly inaccurate information you may have gotten from Golf Digest or elsewere, where property damage occurs, as opposed to personal injury damage, the individual golfer who did the damage has no defense and must pay up.

 

Regarding physical injury (not property damage) arising out of being hit by a golf ball, this is a whole other matter which I detailed in a separate thread on Counselor's Corner (see: "Injuries on the Golf Course"). The long and short of that is it really depends on your particular jurisdiction for whether you can recover. However, regardless of the applicable state laws, in most instances, if someone gets hit by an errant golf ball and they are not on the course (E.g. on their property adjoining the course such as in the Nussbaum case) they can recover. This has to do with the limitations of the 'assumption of the risk' defense as explained in the other thread.

 

Note that assumption of the risk, however, is not applicable as a defense to a claim regarding property damage because the property damage claim will sound in trespass, not negligence and 'assumption of the risk' is not a defense to a trespass claim.

 

But regardless of any lay explanations or opinions on the matter from whatever source derived, if you break a window on someone's house with your golf ball, prepare to break out the check book next.

[ccfgc]

Okay . . . The golfer is responsible. Your homeowners insurance will cover any damage. I keep a couple of my agent's business cards in my bag just in case.

 

In 2002, I was playing with my Father in Sun City West, AZ. The 13th hole is a dog leg left and I thought "hit a little draw 3-wood." So I did and I forgot one thing. The wind was also blowing from right to left at about 20 mph. . . . yup. . . . I hooked it into this guys skylight. I could hear the glass breaking. . . . The poor man happened to be sitting under the skylight at the time. Showered with glass and a Titleist this guy comes flying out of the house running down the fairway. Remember this is Sun City West . . . . he had to be 70 . . . . foaming at the mouth he starts yelling. "Is this your balls? Is this your ball?!!!!!!"

 

I calmly went up and handed him one of my insurance agent's business cards and told him I would pay for everyting.

 

He ranted on for another minute about that they have only lived there a year and have had 7 windows broken.

 

I thought, "Man, your are stupid, 240 yards off the tee and a dogleg left. Of course golfers will try and cut the corner, . . . what did you think would happen?" :D

[Placebo]

Interesting saga there BusinessGolf. I think your request to the club was more than reasonable and his response makes his integrity look questionable. Good luck to you and keep us posted on your progress. Also if you do erect the net and get sponser's then pictures will be in order! :cheesy:

[arkstorm]

Dear BusinessGolf,

 

The question regarding your saga boils down to determining the club's legal duty if business invitees on their property, i.e. golfers paying to use their golf facility, regularly cause damage to your person or property as a result of their activity. It sort of has the makings of a nuisance claim, however courts have very regularly shot down any actions brought in nuisance against golf courses under similar scenarios. Essentially, courts in every jurisdiction in which I have checked impute no duty upon the golf course. Actions for negligent design (of the golf course) have likewise failed.

 

Often in tort law the court wants to limit causes of action to the most culpable party. Common sense would render a duty upon the golf course to take some steps to prevent damage from occuring but unfortunately the law forgoes common sense in the interest of convention. Thus, it is unlikely that anyone will convince a court anytime soon to hold a golf course responsible for errant golf balls flying off their course and through your living room window. Its still the individual golfers' responsibility.

[arkstorm]

Its much simpler than that. The golfer has absolute responsibility (a legal duty) arising from any property damage caused by their golf shot regardless of what club they hit vs. what club they should have hit. Likewise, as noted previously, the golf course has no duty.

 

As for putting up signs, If you want to put a sign on your own property, so long as the sign doesn't violate any ordinances or covenants either in its placement or content, I would say its okay. As for putting a sign on the golf course property, that's a trespass and you may not do so.

 

Have you considered putting up a net? Granted it might cost you some dough, but it may save you from expensive property damage or personal injury in the future and maybe a non-litiguous means is the best way to resolve this?

[slicer365]

It is 99.9% of the time the homeowner's fault. Unless the homeowner is out video recording the events that led up to the window breaking and can say without a doubt that the golfer intentionally broke his window.

 

Most of the breakage is covered under insurance, but the premiums are killer if you live on a golf course.

[arkstorm]

It is 99.9% of the time the homeowner's fault. Unless the homeowner is out video recording the events that led up to the window breaking and can say without a doubt that the golfer intentionally broke his window.

 

Most of the breakage is covered under insurance, but the premiums are killer if you live on a golf course.

 

You are 100% wrong! The homeowner is never at fault if a golfer breaks his window. (Read the previous posts on this thread and other threads in "Counselor's Corner" for more details). Also, insurance is never determinative of who's at fault. It sounds like you are confusing fault and proof. The homeowner does have to prove who broke the window, but its the fault of the person who broke the window regardless of whether you can prove who did it. If the homeowner fails to prove who did it, he may end up bearing the cost of repair, but not because he's at fault, only because the true party at fault cannot be ascertained.

[bradkv]

It is never the homeowner's fault, the homeowner cannot be held legally liable for a golfer's actions. However, errant shots are an inherent part of the game, and it is a forseeable risk that your home, person, automobile, etc. might be struck by a golf ball if you live in close proximity to a golf hole. Not everyone is honest enough to knock on your door after hitting a poor shot that causes damage to your property, and the insurance companies know this, which is why the policy pays for the damage caused.

I was involved in an incident several weeks ago in which a construction worker parked his pickup truck on the 13th fairway, inside the treeline and cart path, in the rough on the left side of the hole. I always hit a cut at the left side rough, working it back to the middle of the fairway, because that is the shot that gives the best results on that hole. Again, he was parked in the left rough, left of the cart path, treeline, and in bounds on golf course property. I hit the ball and pulled it a touch, and it never cut. It bounced off his hood, and ended up in the middle of the fairway. He took my information, reported it to my homeowners insurance company, and it was found that he was negligent for parking on golf course property. The negligence laws where I live stipulate that if either party is 1% negligent, then their recovery from the other party is completely barred, so I was not responsible for paying him anything. A homeowners issue is a little different, but when you buy a home on the course, it is entirely expected that your home might be hit by an errant shot.

[arkstorm]

What you are describing is known as a "pure contributory negligence" law. And it only exists in one state, somewhere down south. Nonetheless, in all other states, the golfer would have been responsible for most if not all of the damage. However, more on point, a homeowner can never be deemed to be partially at fault for having his home near a golf course, so even in your jurisdiction a homeowner would never be at fault where a golfer broke his window.

[slicer365]

That's funny, in Texas, as long as I've been playing golf, it was explained to me that the homeowner is always at fault for having built a house on the golf course, knowing full well that errant shots happen, and the result could be a broken window.

 

Thanks for the heads up.

[arkstorm]

Sidenote: Texas is not the pure contributory negligence theory jurisdiction to which I was refering.

[slicer365]

So basically junior could be in the kitchen with one of his blocks and throw it at the window and breaking it and all the homeowner has to do is take pictures of a golf ball and glass surrounding it, thus staging it as if a golfer broke his window.

[arkstorm]

So basically junior could be in the kitchen with one of his blocks and throw it at the window and breaking it and all the homeowner has to do is take pictures of a golf ball and glass surrounding it, thus staging it as if a golfer broke his window.

 

Huh? What do you mean? You seem to be describing some sort of fraud.

 

If "Junior" broke the window than he (or his parents, assuming he is beneath the age of majority) have a duty to the homeowner.

 

Can you elaborate what you mean by your example?

[smithg1053]

The company I work for has a golf league that runs from Spring into Fall. About 2 years ago during a match, one of the players struck a shot that broke a house window which sat adjoining the fairway. The golfer did contact the owner and offered to help pay for the window. The homeowner told the golfer that he would have to pay for the entire repair. The golfer did not agree, and the case went to court (Duluth/Atlanta, Georgia).

 

The court ruled in favor of the golfer and held him harmless in this case. Apparently the judge felt that by purchasing a home located adjoining a golf course, that there was an inherent risk of their property being subject to the possibility of errand shots and a reasonable person would know that.

[Golf_Beauty]

Speaking from the real estate agents side of view, here's what I know. A recent case shows how courts are putting more obligations on buyers of residential property to understand the condition of the property notwithstanding the seller’s customary obligation to provide a disclosure form to the buyer.

 

This case involved a buyer who was purchasing a house on a golf course. I can already hear you thinking that anyone who buys a house on a golf course surely knows that one thing follows: errant golf balls. The seller did not consider errant golf balls being a problem and therefore did not disclose them in the property disclosure statement. Although they fell into the yard with some frequency during the summer, he did not remember that they caused damage to the house, his family or even their dog. When buyer first viewed the house, he noticed a ball in the street and even inquired as to “whether the balls fly here.” According to the buyer, buyer’s agent said “she didn’t know. Maybe.” Buyer did not do any further investigation and closed the deal.

 

Well, you guessed it. Buyer moves in and in his opinion, golf balls are raining down on him. He sues everyone including both listing and selling agent (typical in misrepresentation cases). Unfortunately for buyer, the court found that the issue of errant golf balls may not have warranted disclosure but that even if it did, buyer waived disclosure of the problem when he saw the golf ball in the street and failed to investigate further.

 

What does this tell us? First, if you don’t like dodging golf balls, don’t live next to a golf course. Duh! Seriously, it tells us that as a buyer, you need to pay attention to what you see on (and off) of the property. If there is anything that remotely creates concern in your head about something that may be important to you, you MUST investigate. Disclosure statements are great but they are not insurance policies. This case illustrates that notwithstanding seller’s obligation to disclose material facts, buyers cannot sit idle in the face of visual information and expect the law to protect them.

 

Who won in this case? The lawyers. Seller, buyer, listing agent and selling agent (and their brokers) all had to spend time and money dealing with this law suit. Everyone of them bear some culpability. Seller could have disclosed the fact that at times, golf balls become a nuisance. Listing agent could have inquired about this issue and advised the seller that such disclosure, while maybe not legally required, might be a risk reduction technique against a future suit by the buyer. Selling agent could have asked more probing questions about whether errant golf balls might be something important to the buyer that needs further investigation. Of course, buyer could have been more diligent about his own wants and needs.

 

My guess is that all parties in this case learned a good lesson and will do things differently next time. I know this doesn't talk about the golfers responsibility, but it does let you know how the homeowner is responsible for where he lives.

[arkstorm]

The company I work for has a golf league that runs from Spring into Fall. About 2 years ago during a match, one of the players struck a shot that broke a house window which sat adjoining the fairway. The golfer did contact the owner and offered to help pay for the window. The homeowner told the golfer that he would have to pay for the entire repair. The golfer did not agree, and the case went to court (Duluth/Atlanta, Georgia).

 

The court ruled in favor of the golfer and held him harmless in this case. Apparently the judge felt that by purchasing a home located adjoining a golf course, that there was an inherent risk of their property being subject to the possibility of errand shots and a reasonable person would know that.

 

This is a very interesting post because in applying a reasonableness standard the judge treated it like a negligence liability issue when really its more of an intentional tort liability issue. This could be for one of two reasons:

 

(a) The plaintiff presented it as a negligence matter, i.e. claiming that the golfer was negligent (had a duty, breached the duty, was the proximate and legal cause of the harm, and the harm resulted in damages) in breaking the window with the golf ball.

 

If this is the case, than its for the finder of fact (the judge in a non jury trial) to determine negligence. Under this scenario, and for whatever reason, the judge did not find negligence, or alternatively found less than 50.1% negligence culpability in the golfer.

 

(b) The judge was playing King Solomon and decided to cut the baby in half. This is a metaphor for when a judge creates his or her own law in achieving what they believe is a fair solution.

 

If the claim was not rooted in negligence but the judge decided the matter using a negligence standard this is ripe for an appeal out of abuse of discretion. Plus, its just bad jurisprudence.

 

If I had to guess which scenario this story represents I would guess the latter, (b). I've seen a lot of local yokle judges pull this sort of thing and if the losing party appeals the ruling gets overturned more often than not. However, the reason this goes on is because chances are no one is going to take an appeal over a broken window.

 

Maybe there are more details involving this particular case that would color it differently, however, based on theoretical law, the homeowner should have won. But here is an example of the difference between theoretical law and what actually happens in court.

[arkstorm]

Speaking from the real estate agents side of view, here's what I know. A recent case shows how courts are putting more obligations on buyers of residential property to understand the condition of the property notwithstanding the seller’s customary obligation to provide a disclosure form to the buyer.

 

This case involved a buyer who was purchasing a house on a golf course. I can already hear you thinking that anyone who buys a house on a golf course surely knows that one thing follows: errant golf balls. The seller did not consider errant golf balls being a problem and therefore did not disclose them in the property disclosure statement. Although they fell into the yard with some frequency during the summer, he did not remember that they caused damage to the house, his family or even their dog. When buyer first viewed the house, he noticed a ball in the street and even inquired as to “whether the balls fly here.” According to the buyer, buyer’s agent said “she didn’t know. Maybe.” Buyer did not do any further investigation and closed the deal.

 

Well, you guessed it. Buyer moves in and in his opinion, golf balls are raining down on him. He sues everyone including both listing and selling agent (typical in misrepresentation cases). Unfortunately for buyer, the court found that the issue of errant golf balls may not have warranted disclosure but that even if it did, buyer waived disclosure of the problem when he saw the golf ball in the street and failed to investigate further.

 

What does this tell us? First, if you don’t like dodging golf balls, don’t live next to a golf course. Duh! Seriously, it tells us that as a buyer, you need to pay attention to what you see on (and off) of the property. If there is anything that remotely creates concern in your head about something that may be important to you, you MUST investigate. Disclosure statements are great but they are not insurance policies. This case illustrates that notwithstanding seller’s obligation to disclose material facts, buyers cannot sit idle in the face of visual information and expect the law to protect them.

 

Who won in this case? The lawyers. Seller, buyer, listing agent and selling agent (and their brokers) all had to spend time and money dealing with this law suit. Everyone of them bear some culpability. Seller could have disclosed the fact that at times, golf balls become a nuisance. Listing agent could have inquired about this issue and advised the seller that such disclosure, while maybe not legally required, might be a risk reduction technique against a future suit by the buyer. Selling agent could have asked more probing questions about whether errant golf balls might be something important to the buyer that needs further investigation. Of course, buyer could have been more diligent about his own wants and needs.

 

My guess is that all parties in this case learned a good lesson and will do things differently next time. I know this doesn't talk about the golfers responsibility, but it does let you know how the homeowner is responsible for where he lives.

 

What this case deffintely represents is that the buyer was on constructive notice of the fact that it rains golfballs when he or she saw the golfballs around the house. What it doesn't represent is an answer to who is liable for when a golfer damages a house with a golfball.

 

The homeowner will not and should not be able to collect for the golfball damage from the prior owner or any of the agents invovled in the transaction. However, the golfer is still on the hook.

[AcesAZ]

A little off topic but why do they keep having to build homes so close to the course? Better planning is needed when buliding a course so that the houses are not 10 yards off the freakin fairway. Ive seen this on many courses I've played.

[Bushy]

If you live on a golf course you have to expect the odd prov1 arriving in your house

[DaveyH]

a course i played North Wales Golf Club.supposedly one of the best clubs in wales,The first hole if your long enough you can choose to carry a row of houses!!Bet those houses have seen a few golf balls.

[SuperstarZZZ]

The homeowner would have to prove in court that it was you that caused the dameage. This would be impossible to prove. What's he going to do, ask if you were hitting a Titleist 1. Even if you were it's going to be rather difficult for him to prove you did it. I've hit a house or two trying to take too much off a dogleg - or whatever. One guy even came out yelling at me. I told him that is what you get for buying a home on a golf course in a spot where it will get hit. With my house on a golf course, I expect it to get hit. It's just going to get hit sooner or later. Plus, you look like a turd when you go out and yell at someone for doing something that was just an accident in the first place. Anyone that has actually gotten dooped into paying for a broken window that they hit a golf ball into, I say come play my golf course.

[scar1900]

I just don't see how you can say that a golfer is responsible for damages. I don't buy the whole "well keep it in the fairway" argument. The PGA tour average for fairways hit is around 65%.That means one out of every three tee shots misses. Look a Mickelson, he missed WAY left at the Open and he's a MULTIPLE MAJOR WINNER. When was the last time Tiger found a fairway? And he's THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD!!! If those guys can't keep in the fairway for one round, how do you expect weekend golfers to never miss a fairway.

 

It's plain and simple to me, you know the game of golf and you knew where you bought your house. Saying it's the golfers fault is irresponsible on the homeowners part.

 

I know this probably won't be a popular point of view, but it seems silly to blame golfers. That's what we go out there for, the challenge of the game. If you build your house 250 yards right of and 10 yards of a dogleg right, you should know that you'll be having some Top Flights popping in every now and then. I mean, let's get real here.

[JoeF]

Man up! If you damage something then pay for it.