Broken Window or other damage caused by golf ball, for homes located "on" golf courses Options

[TheBUNKY]

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.

This post has been edited by arkstorm: May 30 2006, 11:31 AM

[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?"

This post has been edited by ccfgc: May 30 2006, 10:04 AM

[BusinessGolf]

I really appreciate the advice from attorneys on this subject. Being a homeowner in the dogleg of a 386 yd par four we catch at least three golf balls each day, and on Monday’s when the private country club’s course is rented to outside events, we will get an average of 8 balls in our back yard and at least three in our front yard if the event is a Pro-AM.

I have been trying to find a solution since after ten years we have gotten our first broken windows. There were two windows broken within a week apart, both from Pro-AM events. We were not home so we have no way of knowing if anyone tried to claim responsibility or not.

To find a solution I visited with my neighbors and all have had similar problems with some incidents of a child being hit with an errant golf ball that resulted in the same golfer playing a provisional that landed about two feet from where the kid was hit…the golfer just drove by the house while the parents where getting the child into the house.

This and other examples were used in the letter I wrote to the club’s manager asking of help in finding a solution to this problem so the risk can be eliminated. I suggested that a plaque be placed at the tee back advising the golfer how far the turn (235 yds) is so the golfers can intelligently know what club to select. This was quickly turned down with an explanation that the cost for the plaque is not budgeted on the club expenses and the risk is not the clubs responsibility to reduce. I made an absurd suggestion to the club manager about me contacting Titleist and Nike to see if they would want to advertise on the Net I was going to erect along my fence if the club did not take action…the club manager did not like that sighting a city ordinance keeping be from it. He didn’t know that I had already contacted the city and there is not ordinance and the mayor who lives across the fairway applauded me on my innovativeness and told me he would back me on whatever action I need to take since he is getting golf balls in his yard along with golfers jumping the fence to get their Pro-V1’s that are in is garden.

It seems that there is some legal ground here on if the club is doing everything to eliminate the problem or risk. My next recourse is to turn this over to my attorney, but I thought I would offer this example up to see what arkstorm has to say about this situation.

[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!

[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.

[BusinessGolf]

Thanks for the advice. Can I be so bold to take action to eliminate the risk to my property and person by posting signage on my property?

The argument I have (and again would appreciate your view on this point) is this, the golfer has an inherent knowledge of the risk to property damage when he/she looks down the fairway and sees a line of houses facing him that is well in reach of his/her average shot. Negating this knowledge to play a club that he/she knows will reach the houses seems to me to have produced a motive to take the risk if the shot they intend to make (a draw for right-handers, one of the most difficult shots for amateurs to make) around the dogleg goes straight into my property. Would the court take into consideration this knowledge the golfer is provided from looking down the fairway? I am not sure I am making myself clear, but when they pull the big-dog when it is a three iron shot to the 150 marker, is this risk they are taking to get to the 100 yard market enough to show they are taking personal responsibility for their errant shot and doesn’t the club have responsibility to advise them of risk they take if they chose to take that shot?

[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?

This post has been edited by arkstorm: Jul 10 2006, 12:48 PM

[BusinessGolf]

I previously mentioned in a light tone that I had considered putting up a net similar to one I saw out in Palm Springs where a residence had erected a net and it had a large Nike logo on it. The story was Nike was paying for the net since the homeowner produced some rather negative press on Nike for one of its balls breaking a window in his home. To turn the negative press around Nike offered to pay for a net and he took them up on it. It must of cost thousands of dollars since the net was over 80ft tall and ran the entire length of the homeowners property line of more than a hundred feet. It must have been just a publicity stunt since I played the course again a couple of years later an the net was gone. The pro shop said it was due to the new owner who said he would go with Titleist if he gets another broken window…

Thanks for the help...

[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?

[BusinessGolf]

I am from Texas and I have had this debate (or more of an argument) with other golfers from Texas on this issue and I find that most of their ignorance (or motivation to ignore the fact) on this issue comes from having too many Lone Star beers during their round of golf. I am hoping to piss off a few of these guys who feel they have no responsibility once they step up on thee TeeBox and get them to move off to Oklahoma or someplace other than Texas…

[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.

This post has been edited by scar1900: Dec 24 2006, 05:35 PM

[JoeF]

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

[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.

This post has been edited by Gozz: Dec 26 2006, 04:22 PM

[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)

This post has been edited by Evil R1: Dec 29 2006, 08:12 AM

[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).

This post has been edited by stevepoz: Jan 21 2007, 10:12 PM

[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.