QUOTE (skizix @ Jun 30 2009, 02:03 AM)

QUOTE (topekareal @ Jun 29 2009, 09:40 PM)

QUOTE (arkstorm @ Jun 29 2009, 01:37 PM)

Here's the law in every jurisdiction in the U.S:
If you hit your ball at someone's house and damage their house, whether you did it intentionally, recklessly, or accidentally, you are responsible/liable for the damage. There is no assumption of the risk defense that you can assert.
Where the law gets a little dicey, and where jurisdictions differ, is if you hit another person with the ball and cause them injury. Then, in certain instances and jurisdictions, you may assert an assumption of the risk or other similar defense only if charged with negligence (as opposed to an intentional tort).
Also, where a homeowner tries to recover damages against the owner of the golf course visavis a nuisance claim there may be certain assumption of the risk type defenses that are applicable.
The presence or absence of insurance coverage is NEVER proof or disproof of liability. So even if the homeowner is insured and you're not, you are still liable.
Proving who did it and what damage was done are all separate matters. But the liability is unquestionable.
This simply isn't true in practice. I am not sure where you are getting this information, but the golfer isn't liable for a ball hit at a house which results in damage. If he/she did so intentionally and this can be proved, that is an entirely different matter.
I have to agree. Despite sounding vaguely authoritative, arkstorm's info sounds faulty to me. I'm no lawyer, but everything I've ever heard from sources I trust is that the vast majority of golf ball vs. house cases that wind up in court are settled in favor of the golfer (but: very important to remember:
not all of them!). The issue at hand turns out to be negligence, as defined by tort law. If a golfer is on a legit course, which obviously sanctions golf play, and the golfer makes every effort within his/her ability to hit the ball in bounds, an errant shot is in no way a negligent act. The liability winds up most with the homeowner, who knowingly set up shop next to a golf course, and next-most with the course, who knowingly sanctions golfing close to homes, and least of all with the golfer, as long as they are honestly playing with the intent of the activity sanctioned by the course.
Every course I've ever played has signs saying that any damage to property or injury is the sole responsibility of the golfer. But those signs are so much fluff, and
not a legal disclaimer -- the idea being to nip in the bud a lot of incidents that might otherwise be directed towards the course, as well as curb sporadic assbaggery. Did you know that you cannot get a ticket for running a stop sign in a private parking lot? I had an ongoing argument with a friend about that, and to my chagrin, I finally asked a cop, and he said not only
could they not write a ticket for that, but that unless there is an injury or ensuing assault, etc., that they normally would not even respond to an accident in a private parking lot.
Very subtle issue here though. I'd hate to be a judge settling one of these cases. I mean, even if you didn't
intentionally hit the house...let's say you blew your top and shot backwards to exact revenge on someone who shot up on you -- I'd say you're violating the terms of your sanctioned activity, and if you hit a house,
even though that was not your intent, then it's your problem entirely. Or what if you'd been uncannily hitting short duck hooks all day, so you decide to tee off with driver on that 150 yd. par three, and aim 30 degrees right, but stripe one 300 and straight, smashing somebody's 20' x 30' window. What then? Is club choice a factor, despite your actual intent? How about skill level? If you know your driver is not very consistent, is it patently irresponsible (and thus negligent) to ever hit driver to a narrow fairway lined with houses? "I knew there was a very good chance I'd hit a house, but I surely never intended to..." Should you only ever play a club which could not possibly ever reach someone's giant picture window (or street with traffic, or the next fairway, etc.)? Of course not.
As for injury: is it "worse" (negligence-wise) if you slice the crap out of a drive and hit someone on the next fairway, or if you hit a perfect "career" drive, and plunk someone on the green of a par 4, not having waited for them to clear, even though you never in a million years expected to hit it that far? Tough call, though
intent-wise in any case...no negligence in either case, really.
Ok, enough conjecture. What do I think the honorable thing to do is if you damage a house (hint: it's not denying you hit the shot, even though there's no doubt in your mind...jackass!)? Honestly, the most fair option in my mind is to offer to split the homeowner's insurance deductable (and yes, they file the claim -- their house damaged, their homeowner's claim).
Of course, if the homowner who knowingly chose to live 20' off the fairway is a complet a-hole about it...could bias my sense of ethics somewhat.
I want to respond on both a legal basis and on an ethical basis which are often totally distinct but just so happen to agree on this mater.
First legal (and I just so happen to be an attorney who has litigated similar matters, so if I come off as overly authoritative I apologize in advance): It is true that there is case law in certain States where the golfer ultimately wasn't held liable. But these cases varied in material ways from our simple example of: "golfer hits house with errant shot and breaks window". Regarding the article that was mentioned above, that article does a very poor job of explaining the nuances which tipped the balance one way or another with regards to whether the golfer was liable. That author loosely amalgamated cases of property damage, personal injury and nuisance. And like I said in my first post above, all those receive different treatment under the law. But we are specifically discussing property damage only, so here goes:
With regards to property damage, while it is true that, as a practical matter, it is difficult for the homeowner to recover because you need to prove who did it and what damage was caused, assuming you can, you would bring an action for the intentional tort of trespass. This is different than negligence because there is no duty element in intentional tort, hence no assumption of the risk.
And to answer another point that was brought up regarding whether the golfer "intended" to hit the ball at the house, whether it was an "intentional" act. The most important point to remember here is that when it comes to intentional torts, you don't have to intent for the outcome to occur. In the example of a golfer hitting a house with his golf ball and causing damage, the intent element is satisfied by the golfer intentionally hitting the ball. Once the golfer intentionally hits the ball he has to assume responsibility for any outcome, including damaging a nearby house. Can there be certain circumstances which cause a departure from the cut and dry rule of liability? Certainly! But for purposes of our example, the golfer is legally liable in every U.S. jurisdiction. You can argue and cry that it aint fair, but 'dem are 'de facts.
Now, as to the ethical obligation of the golfer. For some reason it seems very clear to me that if I break someone's window with my golf ball I should pay to have it fixed. Maybe its just my own sense of personal accountability speaking here, but I can't even fathom how, after hitting an errant golf ball and breaking someone's window with it, I could think, "its not my fault?!?"
I'm not talking about insurance here. Regardless of whether I, or the homeowner, have insurance that would cover the cost, that is all good and well. Let the insurance cover it. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying that ethically, I did it, it was my oops, I should pay to fix the damage!
This is one of those rare occasions where the law and the ethics of personal accountability agree and you don't have to be King Solomon to figure it out. I expect disagreement here, even from other attorneys, but I'll be more than happy to explain in further detail if anyone has any questions.