Broken Window or other damage caused by golf ball

[Gozz]

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.

 

I can not believe this lame argument has come up again. The home owner has the same argument that you have. You know that you are a hacker and have a tendency to slice the ball. Therefore, you should not play courses with houses built on the right because you know that you will hit them. The bottom line is be responsible for your actions. YOU teed the ball up, YOU hit a slice or hook and YOU caused damage to someone's property. Your own home owners insurance should cover it, if not swallow your pride and pay up. They did not throw their house into the fairway (though it might be safer there) so don't hit a ball into their living room. Should they expect to see the occasional golfer in their yard, yes. Should they have to pay for every hacker that plays on the course, No.

 

By the way, when is the last time you have seen a PGA player hit an actual house? Do you think that they would stiff the home owner if they busted out a window? I don't think so. I don't expect golfers to hit every fairway but you might want to try to keep it on the course. If you can not, do not play courses with houses on them.

[stevepoz]

I always find this amusing. You might be morally responsible for damages, but in many jurisdictions, not legally. I researched Missouri law on this a little while ago and found no Missouri cases directly on point, but they seemed to indicate that the golfer would not be at fault (in most cases). If someone can cite cases to the opposite, I would be willing to see it.

 

The above is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.

[Evil R1]

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.

 

On the par-4 fourth hole at Centennial Golf Club's Meadows Course in Carmel, N.Y., this adjacent home is always in play.

 

LOL, My brother almost hit that house at the beginning of the summer. I didn't realize it was "Famous" for getting hit, I just figured my brother was really that bad (which he is) :fool:

[arkstorm]

I always find this amusing. You might be morally responsible for damages, but in many jurisdictions, not legally. I researched Missouri law on this a little while ago and found no Missouri cases directly on point, but they seemed to indicate that the golfer would not be at fault (in most cases). If someone can cite cases to the opposite, I would be willing to see it.

 

The above is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.

 

Can you share which MO cases indicate that the golfer would not be at fault? (My prediction is these are negligence cases which deal with fault, and not intnetional tort / injury to property cases which do not).

 

Bare in mind that a negligence standard would be incorrect to apply here.

[stevepoz]

Thanks for the practice tip. My Missouri case dealt with Nuisance; it was not a good one due to the facts. However, see:

 

Larry GEDDES et al., Appellants, v. MILL CREEK COUNTRY CLUB, INC., et al., Appellees., (Ill 2001) Plaintiff homeowners estopped from claimss of damages due to consent of golf course design. Doesn't seem like a stretch then that if the course was already there when the people moved in, they would be estopped too due to the open and obvious issues. As the Illinois Ct said: "That golfers do not always hit their golf balls straight is a matter of common knowledge; it is a fact that needs no supporting evidence, a principle that needs no citation of authority. Courts have long acknowledged this axiom: " 'It is well known that not every shot played by a golfer goes to the point where he intends it to go. If such were the case, every player would be perfect and the whole pleasure of the *316 sport would be lost.' Geddes at 321 (citations omitted).

[arkstorm]

Thanks for the practice tip. My Missouri case dealt with Nuisance; it was not a good one due to the facts. However, see:

 

...As the Illinois Ct said: "That golfers do not always hit their golf balls straight is a matter of common knowledge; it is a fact that needs no supporting evidence, a principle that needs no citation of authority. Courts have long acknowledged this axiom: " 'It is well known that not every shot played by a golfer goes to the point where he intends it to go. If such were the case, every player would be perfect and the whole pleasure of the *316 sport would be lost.' Geddes at 321 (citations omitted).

 

 

This language seems really familiar....I believe it was from a case where a guy on the golf course was hit by an errant ball and was suing for personal injury damages...which is not analogous to damages to property.

[stevepoz]

Thanks for the practice tip. My Missouri case dealt with Nuisance; it was not a good one due to the facts. However, see:

 

...As the Illinois Ct said: "That golfers do not always hit their golf balls straight is a matter of common knowledge; it is a fact that needs no supporting evidence, a principle that needs no citation of authority. Courts have long acknowledged this axiom: " 'It is well known that not every shot played by a golfer goes to the point where he intends it to go. If such were the case, every player would be perfect and the whole pleasure of the *316 sport would be lost.' Geddes at 321 (citations omitted).

 

 

This language seems really familiar....I believe it was from a case where a guy on the golf course was hit by an errant ball and was suing for personal injury damages...which is not analogous to damages to property.

 

That case you are thinking about used similar language and it was for pi. However, as I pointed out in my original post, Geddes dealt with damages suffered by a homeonwer; I thought that was sufficient to indicate it was property damage.

[Golfdog]

I believe the Golf Digest article is correct. I am aware of several such rulings in favor of the golfer at my clubs.

[arkstorm]

Thanks for the practice tip. My Missouri case dealt with Nuisance; it was not a good one due to the facts. However, see:

 

Larry GEDDES et al., Appellants, v. MILL CREEK COUNTRY CLUB, INC., et al., Appellees., (Ill 2001) Plaintiff homeowners estopped from claimss of damages due to consent of golf course design. Doesn't seem like a stretch then that if the course was already there when the people moved in, they would be estopped too due to the open and obvious issues. As the Illinois Ct said: "That golfers do not always hit their golf balls straight is a matter of common knowledge; it is a fact that needs no supporting evidence, a principle that needs no citation of authority. Courts have long acknowledged this axiom: " 'It is well known that not every shot played by a golfer goes to the point where he intends it to go. If such were the case, every player would be perfect and the whole pleasure of the *316 sport would be lost.' Geddes at 321 (citations omitted).

 

Okay, upon finally having an opportunity to read the Geddes case it is another instance where the court disallowed an adjacent land owner to sue the golf course for damages (in this instance trespass and nuisance).

 

But this is the thing folks, the landowner can still sue the golfer for damages. You broke it, you pay to fix it. I know this sounds like a strange concept to many who have read and posted on this thread...but there is just no legal wiggle room here.

 

It is important not to confuse nuisance law or some strange liability shift to the golf course (which the courts disfavor) with liability of he or she who does the damage.

 

So, can you recover against the golf course if your window constantly gets tagged? Probably not.

 

Can you recover against the golfer who broke your window? DEFINITELY YES!

[whatever]

Can you recover against the golfer who broke your window? DEFINITELY YES!

 

I highly doubt you'll ever find a case on point though...it isn't worth the golfers time/money to hire an attorney for a $1000 window and the homeonwer wouldn't often take the risk of suing an individual who may be basically judgment proof.

 

I would bet that the golfer can be coerced to pay by a simple threat of legal action...hence it never reaching the courts.

[arkstorm]

Can you recover against the golfer who broke your window? DEFINITELY YES!

 

I highly doubt you'll ever find a case on point though...it isn't worth the golfers time/money to hire an attorney for a $1000 window and the homeonwer wouldn't often take the risk of suing an individual who may be basically judgment proof.

 

I would bet that the golfer can be coerced to pay by a simple threat of legal action...hence it never reaching the courts.

 

This may well be true. Though just as likely, you probably won't find case law on point because courts tend to not publish opinions on matters of law that should be obvious. A court opinion is an interpretation of the law. Where no interpretation is necessary or even possible, you won't find a whole lot of case law.

[arkstorm]

If this is the case I can assume if I park my car at a little league ball park and a kid hit one out and breaks my windshield he would have to replace it.

 

Strictly speaking, no. If the kid is a minor, most likely, his parents or guardian would have to pay to replace the windshield.

[g8a_golf]

I have broken two windows, put ball marks on my living room wall, and demolished my old lampshade from practicing my backswing and it getting in the way.

[arkstorm]

I have broken two windows, put ball marks on my living room wall, and demolished my old lampshade from practicing my backswing and it getting in the way.

 

I fail to see how this is germane to this conversation?

[Wookieedog]

Sorry arkstrom, gotta disagree with you...the doctrine of assumption of the risk applies here. For non-lawyers, that means that you assume the risk of your activities. If you park your car at a baseball game and it gets hit by a ball, absent a negligent act or intentional act to cause damage, you assumed the risk of having your car hit by a ball. It is foreseeable that it is a possibility. 2 kids throwing a ball in the parking lot and one misses the catch and hits your car, that would be a negligence claim. A kid intentionally throwing a ball at your car would be intentional. A kid hitting a ball out of the park is your tough luck.

 

For golf, you choose to live on a golf course where you can foresee that your yard, wife, house, etc can be hit by a ball, well, you assume the risk of living there. You do not have to live there, you can move. You want to live on a golf course with the benefits of life there, well, that means you also assume the risks that are inherent in living there.

 

In Georgia....

 

ROSE v. MORRIS, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 97 Ga. App. 764; 104 S.E.2d 485; 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 879, June 23, 1958, Decided...............a person who gets hit by a golf ball, even where the golfer did not yell "fore", has assumed the risk of being hit by the golf ball by being around the course

 

 

"In golf, unlike in baseball, when a golfer strikes an errant shot, he is expected to yell "fore" to warn his fellow golfers and spectators of the imminent danger. See Thomas, 217 Ga. at 689 (1). Even so, despite this duty to warn, "people who are on a golf course must assume the risk of being injured from a defected or hooked or sliced ball." Rose v. Morris, 97 Ga. App. 764, 768 (104 S.E.2d [*793] 485) (1958)." DALTON v. JONES et al. A03A0077. COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, FIRST DIVISION 260 Ga. App. 791; 581 S.E.2d 360; 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 485; 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1269 April 9, 2003, Decided

 

Accordingly, in Georgia, those who live in houses on the golf course have assumed the risk of having a golf ball hit their house, them personally, or their cars etc.

 

Now for the legalese....Nothing above is intended as legal advice. Nothing above creates an attorney client relationship. The above is for your information.

[arkstorm]

Sorry arkstrom, gotta disagree with you...the doctrine of assumption of the risk applies here. For non-lawyers, that means that you assume the risk of your activities. If you park your car at a baseball game and it gets hit by a ball, absent a negligent act or intentional act to cause damage, you assumed the risk of having your car hit by a ball. It is foreseeable that it is a possibility. 2 kids throwing a ball in the parking lot and one misses the catch and hits your car, that would be a negligence claim. A kid intentionally throwing a ball at your car would be intentional. A kid hitting a ball out of the park is your tough luck.

 

For golf, you choose to live on a golf course where you can foresee that your yard, wife, house, etc can be hit by a ball, well, you assume the risk of living there. You do not have to live there, you can move. You want to live on a golf course with the benefits of life there, well, that means you also assume the risks that are inherent in living there.

 

In Georgia....

 

ROSE v. MORRIS, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 97 Ga. App. 764; 104 S.E.2d 485; 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 879, June 23, 1958, Decided...............a person who gets hit by a golf ball, even where the golfer did not yell "fore", has assumed the risk of being hit by the golf ball by being around the course

 

 

"In golf, unlike in baseball, when a golfer strikes an errant shot, he is expected to yell "fore" to warn his fellow golfers and spectators of the imminent danger. See Thomas, 217 Ga. at 689 (1). Even so, despite this duty to warn, "people who are on a golf course must assume the risk of being injured from a defected or hooked or sliced ball." Rose v. Morris, 97 Ga. App. 764, 768 (104 S.E.2d [*793] 485) (1958)." DALTON v. JONES et al. A03A0077. COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, FIRST DIVISION 260 Ga. App. 791; 581 S.E.2d 360; 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 485; 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1269 April 9, 2003, Decided

 

Accordingly, in Georgia, those who live in houses on the golf course have assumed the risk of having a golf ball hit their house, them personally, or their cars etc.

 

Now for the legalese....Nothing above is intended as legal advice. Nothing above creates an attorney client relationship. The above is for your information.

 

You are incorrect.

 

Again, there are cases in every jurisdiction which follows the assumption of the risk doctrine that say that a person getting hit by a golf ball assumes the risk. However, no such case speaks of damage to real property. You are making an incorrect inference from the case which you cited (which deals with a person getting injured), to a house, i.e. real property getting damaged. Hence, distinguish: The assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply to actions in trespass. The granting of building licensing preempts this. You cannot draw upon cases which deal with tort upon a person to answer questions regarding cases which deal with damages arising from trespass to property. And assumption of the risk is not a defense to a trespass claim.

 

After spending more hours on westlaw researching this topic than I should have I have yet to find one single case which deals with liability questions regarding when a house or other real property is hit and damaged by a golf ball. I reassert that the reason for this is because liability is so obvious that no such case is ever published. A few judges I have vetted this to concur.

 

The analysis remains the same: if you break someone's window with your golf ball you owe them for the window. Seems obvious, right?

[VinceRKG]

IMO it should not be the golfers fault, when the home owner buys a house on a course, I am certain they are aware of the balls flying at them. They should have ins. that covers it, and if not, its their fault. I got a house on fly trying to cut a corner, and the man was outside. I asked him, "Did I hit something?" he said" F*ck yes you did, so maybe I can make it even and hit you with the ball!" So I told him that he should know better and be smart about where he gets house. Anyways, he got mad, I got mad, he called the course and they said they dont regulate that the golfers are responsible for damage to houses. He through a hissy fit and went inside yelling.

[arkstorm]

IMO it should not be the golfers fault, when the home owner buys a house on a course, I am certain they are aware of the balls flying at them. They should have ins. that covers it, and if not, its their fault. I got a house on fly trying to cut a corner, and the man was outside. I asked him, "Did I hit something?" he said" F*ck yes you did, so maybe I can make it even and hit you with the ball!" So I told him that he should know better and be smart about where he gets house. Anyways, he got mad, I got mad, he called the course and they said they dont regulate that the golfers are responsible for damage to houses. He through a hissy fit and went inside yelling.

 

I agree with you 100% that homeowners whose houses sit along golf courses should get insurance...but that does not answer the question of whether or not the golfer is liable for the damage. If the homeowner has insurance the insurance company will subrogate the claim and come after the golfer to recover their damages.

[g8a_golf]

I have broken two windows, put ball marks on my living room wall, and demolished my old lampshade from practicing my backswing and it getting in the way.

 

I fail to see how this is germane to this conversation?

I haven't broken anything on somebody ELSES house, but i wanted to be in this thread, and thats the closest thing to the topic that i could come up with...

[Wookieedog]

arkstrom, I am sorry, but all I can tell you is Georgia law. You choose to do something which has an inherent risk, such as living on a course, you assume the risk.

 

think of it like this, you park your car at an Atlanta Braves game. Barry Steroids Bonds hits it out of the stadium and into your windshield. By your analysis, do really think that the the Braves will repair your car. Nope, sorry, you assumed the risk by choosing to park there. Your analysis states that you have an action in trespass against the Braves, Barry Bonds, and Tim Hudson who threw the pitch. That just does not fly.

 

A house sits on a golf course. You choose to buy that house. It is easy to predict that your house may suffer damage. You have assumed that risk. I will argue that in court all day long and walk out a winner.

 

Now, you think that the word injury means only physical bodily harm, an injury to person. However, economic harm is a type of injury. If you deprive me of my quiet enjoyment to property, I am injured. It applies.

 

Now its cute that you make a blanket statement that "he assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply to actions in trespass". However, until you cite actual cases and/or laws, that statement is meaningless. What you have done in this thread is make statements without bothering to actually check out the law. I agree that you cannot find any cases that disagree with the cases I cited. That is because my cases are on point and applicable.

 

Now, as a trial attorney, I do subrogation claims. I can tell you that no insurance company will ever come after a person for a $200 window. The court costs to file a suit here are $125 on average. The attorney's fees will be used up in less than an hour.

 

As for talking with judges, sorry, my judges here seem to disagree. I ran it by them, they seem to agree with me. Whatever that is worth. You can probably have a 100 judges agree with you and I can get 100 to agree with me. Its how the issue is presented to the judge.

 

If I break your window....SUE ME... I dare you, I will keep you wrapped up in court for 3 years for a frickin $200 window. You want to keep coming in to court wasting your time, feel free. Also, good luck finding a lawyer to take your case. You might be willing to accept a 1/3 contingency fee for a $200 window, but not me.

 

And sorry, but the building license does not remove you assuming the risk. The course was there first. You choose to live there. You assume the risk by choosing to build your house there.

[king1066]

Common sense - Its the golfer's fault. Ill bet that everyone who says it the golfer's fault it over 30 years old, because in our day a person was responsible for his/her actions. In todays society no one seems to be responsible for their actions, someone else is always to blame. For example, the lady who burnt herself by putting hot coffee between her legs. I dont understand how a person could think its the homeowners fault because they bought a house on the golf course, however I do think it would be wise to put shatter-proof glass in a house thats on the golf course.

[yoonie]

Buying a house on a golf course and then complaining that it's getting hit by golf balls is like buying a house in Alaska and complaining that it's cold.

 

Also, if you pay the golf course for the right to play golf on their property (a game that inherently includes errant shots), shouldn't they be responsible for any damage caused by standard golf activities? This seems to apply doubly since the course is also the party that placed the houses where they are (or the course, depending on which was there first).

 

The only possible case I can see that golfer should pay for the window is if the course explicitly stated beforehand that there were houses lining the course, and that any damage to said houses is the sole responsibility of the golfer, and had the signature of the golfer stating that he agreed with the above. Otherwise, the golf course has essentially sold a service that they cannot provide on its property- 18 holes of golf.

[dcmidnight]

By the way, when is the last time you have seen a PGA player hit an actual house? Do you think that they would stiff the home owner if they busted out a window? I don't think so. I don't expect golfers to hit every fairway but you might want to try to keep it on the course. If you can not, do not play courses with houses on them.

Thats about the most absurd thing I have ever read. I'd invite you to Northern VA some day to play some of the residential courses we have here where developers literally dropped townhouses in between the fairways on BOTH sides of the hole like walls lining both sides. In some cases the back fences are less than 10 paces off the fairway. What do you suggest in this case that only scratch golfers be allowed to play on these courses? How about we can only hit wedge or putter off the tee? Geez.

 

There's a big difference in my mind between a bunch of drunkards trying to hit 400 yard drives over a dogleg and tanking someone house and the situation I see in this area a lot. If developers are going to be greedy enough to build like this and a homeowner wants to buy a home like this there is an inherent assumption of some risk. Again, this is different from buying a home *slightly* set back where guys are trying to launch driver over your roof to reach a green. These are homes built less than 10 yards off the fairway. If I have time in the next few weeks I will try to get out and take some pictures.

 

I've only hit one window and it was several years ago during a playing lesson (very embarrassing). The owner was not home so I left a note with my name/# and contacted him after the round. My pro said it was the first time he had ever seen that which I consider somewhat sad. Anyway I apologized and offered to split the damages with him at which he flew off the handle and started cussing me out really letting me have it cursing at me, calling me irresponsible etc - all over a tiny side window not even a picture window or skylight. I let him blow off steam for a few minutes and then let him know my wife was an attorney (she is) and if he wanted to take it to court for the other half of the $500 window I would have two or three lawyers working for free for as long as he wanted to pursue his $500 window. He ended up neither suing me nor coming to me for half the damages.

 

I once copied these from various Google searches:

 

====================================

 

Golfer Liability for Dange

 

Question: The back yard of my home in Mesa is on the fairway of a golf course. We occasionally have golf balls break windows in our home, and one time I was struck on the leg by a golf ball. I understand that I may not get the golfer to pay or may not even be able to identify the golfer, but technically and legally, who is responsible for paying the cost to fix my window or the cost of my medical bills?

 

Answer: The reward of living on a golf course is the beautiful view, but the risk is damage to your home or person by an errant golf ball. Therefore, except in extreme circumstances, you will have to pay the cost to repair your broken window. An extreme circumstance may be if a hacker is attempting to hit over your house onto the green but his golf ball breaks your window.

 

In regard to injury to your person, however, a golfer is required to yell fore before striking a golf ball if an individual is within the golfers striking range. The striking range of individual golfers varies greatly. For example, Tiger Woods may have a striking range of 15 degrees in front of him up to 350 yards, while a hacker may have a striking range of 120 degrees in front of him up to 240 yards. Therefore, if you are injured in your back yard by a golfer who did not yell fore,that golfer may be liable to you. Phoenix attorney Christopher A. Combs is a partner with the firm of Combs Law Group, P.C. Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2004, all rights reserved.

 

=====================================

 

Malouf v. Dallas Athletic Country Club, 837 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. App-Dallas 1992, no pet.)

 

In reply to:

 

Appellants own homes adjacent to the number six hole of one of appellee's (DAC) two golf courses. Appellants sued DAC for damages caused by golf balls spiking their property.

 

The gist of trespass to personalty is an injury to, or interference with, possession, unlawfully, with or without the exercise of physical force. Destruction of, or injury to, personal property, regardless of negligence, may be a trespass. A trespass is usually regarded as an intentional tort in the sense that it involves an intent to commit an act which violates a property right, or would be practically certain to have that effect, although the actor may not know that the act he intends to commit is such a violation. Unless the intended act would violate a property right, the actor's liability for unintended consequences ordinarily depends upon proof of negligence.

 

During a game of golf, on the Gold course, the individual golfers intend to hit golf balls toward hole number six. This does not violate a property right. The fact that the ball may "slice" or "hook" onto appellants' properties is an unintended consequence. Appellants had the burden of proof at trial and on appeal of showing that the evidence conclusively established the elements of trespass. Because appellants failed to demonstrate that DAC or the individual golfers intentionally caused the golf balls to damage appellants' personal property, we cannot say that the trial court's conclusion of law that the DAC did not trespass is erroneous.

 

 

=====================================

[king1066]

Houses that adjoin a golf course are not part of the course, period. If you hit one, it is your responsibility. Just because most home-owners are unable to collect damages due to legalities is a mute point, ie - they can not identify the golfer, etc, etc. Case in point, I worked at a country club while in college - the course's parking lot lined the right side of the 1st hole's fairway. When a golfer sliced his driver into the parking lot and hit a car - he paid for damages (I say his b/c the womens tees were further up and the parking lot didnt come into play). On occassion, we had an arguement, but they still had to pay. Therefore, hitting a car in an adjacent parking lot is no different than hitting an adjoining house.

[Gozz]

Oh wow, this thread again. This thing is like a bad STD that won't go away. Look, 50% of the members on here will side with the golfer & 50% with the home owner. My argument will not change your mind, nor yours will change mine. You are coming from a legalistic side, I am coming from a morality side. For the record let me state this. If you live on a golf course you should expect 1. People will be in your back yard looking for golf balls 2. When you look out your window you will see men urinating 3. Your house will get hit by golf balls. That being said, just because you live on a golf course (5 yards or 500 yards) does not mean that if someone does damage to your property they should not be responsible to pay for it. If it were not for the errant swing of the golfer the window would not of been broken. I was raised old school. Golf is a game of honor. When you make an error you call a penalty on yourself and you pay the price. It does not matter what the law is to me, if it is your fault pay up. If the law protects the golfer in your state & you can sleep at night knowing that you just cost someone $500 so be it. Personally I could not. I do not care what the law states I would pay for the repair of the window because I made the errant swing and I broke the window. It is my responsibility to correct my error!

[Wookieedog]

Gozz, I agree with you 100%. It is rare to meet someone who would want to do the right thing even when not legally obligated.

 

I am a former Assistant D.A., (dui's for 5 years, major drug cases for 2 years). I am now a criminal defense and civil law attorney.

 

There are 2 issues. One, are you legally responsible? Answer No.

 

Second question, not to sound preachy, but what would Christ have you do? I think we all know the answer to that.

 

Depending on the question, you have your answer.

[king1066]

Gozz, I agree with you 100%. It is rare to meet someone who would want to do the right thing even when not legally obligated.

 

I am a former Assistant D.A., (dui's for 5 years, major drug cases for 2 years). I am now a criminal defense and civil law attorney.

 

There are 2 issues. One, are you legally responsible? Answer No.

 

Second question, not to sound preachy, but what would Christ have you do? I think we all know the answer to that.

 

Depending on the question, you have your answer.

 

 

Not trying to start an arguement with you wookieedog. I'm sure you know more about the law than I do, but how could the person who hit the ball not be legally responsible? I want to know b/c the way I see it, the golfer has to be responsible. My point being, a homeowner who buys a house on the course does not imply that he/she should expect damage. If this is the case, than a person who purchases a house in a bad neighborhood should expect his/her house to be robbed, therefore it is the homeowners fault not the theif. Or the homeowner who buys a house that is situated on a bad curve in the road should expect a car to crash into his/her house.

[czydj]

I am trying to stay ambiguous on purpose...

 

Some kind of object allegedly struck a homeowners vehicle that was parked in the driveway of a residence directly to the right of the green on a par 3 hole. The HO started walking across the hole toward the golfer who was pulling up to the green. The homeowner loudly and vigorously demanded the drivers license from the golfer. The golfer declined to surrender their license.

 

The HO then indicated he would get it himself by taking the golfers bag off the cart and searching the bag. The golfer indicated he would not let the HO have the license, the bag or any other pieces of his personal property. The golfer indicated he would furnish their name and the name of their insurance agent. The HO insisted on getting the license and continued to move to the cart to forcibly remove the bag and take the license. The golfer stood inbetween the bag and the HO and would not let the HO pass. A scuffle ensued while the golfer was protecting his personal property from being taken. The HO's wife and daughter participated in verbally abusing the golfer and witnessed the entire incident. The golfer was golfing alone at the time. The various accounts of this incident are 3 against 1.

 

The police were called and determined both parties were engaged in a "willful brawl" and both were "criminally" liable in the matter. The police could arrest both parties if one party pursued the issue and then leave it up to the DA to press charges, if any. No arrests were made, neither party would pursue criminal charges. The police indicated any civil suits to recover damages would be up to the two parties and their attornies.

 

What is the golfers next step?

[stevepoz]

Let's see, here goes the law school exam answer, which, of course, should not be construed as legal advice nor create any sort of attorny client relationship:

 

Golfer has potential claims for torts of battery against the HO, potential assault against wife and daughter. Golfer could invoke the privilige of self defense against the HO. Potential COA of conversion.

 

HO has COA of trespass against golfer, battery.

 

Golfers next step, do nothing legally, after all, he knows where the HO lives. :friends:

Alternatively, keep playing golf there, making sure not to "intentionally" hit a ball on to the HO's lawn.

 

I am trying to stay ambiguous on purpose...

 

Some kind of object allegedly struck a homeowners vehicle that was parked in the driveway of a residence directly to the right of the green on a par 3 hole. The HO started walking across the hole toward the golfer who was pulling up to the green. The homeowner loudly and vigorously demanded the drivers license from the golfer. The golfer declined to surrender their license.

 

The HO then indicated he would get it himself by taking the golfers bag off the cart and searching the bag. The golfer indicated he would not let the HO have the license, the bag or any other pieces of his personal property. The golfer indicated he would furnish their name and the name of their insurance agent. The HO insisted on getting the license and continued to move to the cart to forcibly remove the bag and take the license. The golfer stood inbetween the bag and the HO and would not let the HO pass. A scuffle ensued while the golfer was protecting his personal property from being taken. The HO's wife and daughter participated in verbally abusing the golfer and witnessed the entire incident. The golfer was golfing alone at the time. The various accounts of this incident are 3 against 1.

 

The police were called and determined both parties were engaged in a "willful brawl" and both were "criminally" liable in the matter. The police could arrest both parties if one party pursued the issue and then leave it up to the DA to press charges, if any. No arrests were made, neither party would pursue criminal charges. The police indicated any civil suits to recover damages would be up to the two parties and their attornies.

 

What is the golfers next step?

[TexasAg]

arkstrom, I am sorry, but all I can tell you is Georgia law. You choose to do something which has an inherent risk, such as living on a course, you assume the risk.

 

think of it like this, you park your car at an Atlanta Braves game. Barry Steroids Bonds hits it out of the stadium and into your windshield. By your analysis, do really think that the the Braves will repair your car. Nope, sorry, you assumed the risk by choosing to park there. Your analysis states that you have an action in trespass against the Braves, Barry Bonds, and Tim Hudson who threw the pitch. That just does not fly.

 

A house sits on a golf course. You choose to buy that house. It is easy to predict that your house may suffer damage. You have assumed that risk. I will argue that in court all day long and walk out a winner.

 

Now, you think that the word injury means only physical bodily harm, an injury to person. However, economic harm is a type of injury. If you deprive me of my quiet enjoyment to property, I am injured. It applies.

 

Now its cute that you make a blanket statement that "he assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply to actions in trespass". However, until you cite actual cases and/or laws, that statement is meaningless. What you have done in this thread is make statements without bothering to actually check out the law. I agree that you cannot find any cases that disagree with the cases I cited. That is because my cases are on point and applicable.

 

Now, as a trial attorney, I do subrogation claims. I can tell you that no insurance company will ever come after a person for a $200 window. The court costs to file a suit here are $125 on average. The attorney's fees will be used up in less than an hour.

 

As for talking with judges, sorry, my judges here seem to disagree. I ran it by them, they seem to agree with me. Whatever that is worth. You can probably have a 100 judges agree with you and I can get 100 to agree with me. Its how the issue is presented to the judge.

 

If I break your window....SUE ME... I dare you, I will keep you wrapped up in court for 3 years for a frickin $200 window. You want to keep coming in to court wasting your time, feel free. Also, good luck finding a lawyer to take your case. You might be willing to accept a 1/3 contingency fee for a $200 window, but not me.

 

And sorry, but the building license does not remove you assuming the risk. The course was there first. You choose to live there. You assume the risk by choosing to build your house there.

 

 

Thank you for your post. I had a rather heated discussion with arkstrom last year on this subject. Not being a lawyer, I'm at a disadvantage arguing these types of issues. My points were basically in line with what you posted above. I think I posted some case law showing that a golfer couldn't be held liable for personal injury. Arkstrom I believe claimed that the law was different for personal injury vs property damage. I could never quite understand that. If you can't successfully sue me for hitting you with a golf ball while you're in your backyard, then why would you be able to sue me for hitting your house and breaking a window?

 

All of the people I know that live on golf courses just consider replacing windows as a cost of living on a course. They expect it to happen and they just deal with it. If you don't want golf balls in your yard and hitting your house, then you shouldn't build on a course.