Well a quick google search came up with these. ArizonaHawaii & Mass.. The general consensus I've found is that "the majority of U.S. courts have ruled against homeowners, some stating homeowners "assume the risk" of potential injury or property damage by choosing to live next to a course" that is, the homeowners willingly accepted the risk when they moved close to the "nuisance", ie; line of fire. It may be a different situation when the existance of the homes pre-dates the golf course, but I think that is only a small minority of cases. The only point of contention that I could find was whether the golf courses, as opposed to the homeowners should be liable, due to the damage their "invitees" (golfers) do during their normal course of play(in the Massachusetts article). I couldn't find anything which suggested the golfers were liable is these cases.
I think you'd better check with an attorney. It's called "assumption of risk," and if you build a house on a golf course, you assume the risk that your house might get hit by a golf ball.
Ok, but how would the conversation go?
"Tough luck buddy, I guess you shouldn't have built your house next to a course. By the way, can I have my golf ball back?"
IMHO, you'd have to be a first class jerk to say that to somebody.
I think there are a lot of good intentioned posts here, but a lot of mis-informed people.
Assumption of risk as a defense is recognized differently in every state. In some states it is an absolute defense while in others it is mitigating only. Then you have instances of gross negligence that change everything.
Hitting a golf ball through someones window involves negligence. Do not confuse negligence with guilt or intent. In most states there is case law that supports the negligent party is responsible for all damages that are the result of the negligent act.
The reasonable person standard is the test that is used, and I think you will find that a reasonable person would expect a certain amount of golfballs on their property if they lived along a golf course. That same person would also expect for any damages to be paid for by the negligent party.
As far as the "weird" issue with a persons home owners policy covering their damages, it is not weird at all. Most homeowners policies have liability covereage that extends covereage to the insured for certain acts of negligence. You can also get an umbrella policy that will cover pretty much everything.
Bottom line is that if there is proof that someone caused the damage, that person will be responsible for the damages. With a "he said she said case", it will be a wash - i.e. the homeowner claims you broke the window and you claim you did not and there are no witnesses - the homeowner will be stuck with the costs.
I think there are a lot of good intentioned posts here, but a lot of mis-informed people.
Assumption of risk as a defense is recognized differently in every state. In some states it is an absolute defense while in others it is mitigating only. Then you have instances of gross negligence that change everything.
Hitting a golf ball through someones window involves negligence. Do not confuse negligence with guilt or intent. In most states there is case law that supports the negligent party is responsible for all damages that are the result of the negligent act.
The reasonable person standard is the test that is used, and I think you will find that a reasonable person would expect a certain amount of golfballs on their property if they lived along a golf course. That same person would also expect for any damages to be paid for by the negligent party.
As far as the "weird" issue with a persons home owners policy covering their damages, it is not weird at all. Most homeowners policies have liability covereage that extends covereage to the insured for certain acts of negligence. You can also get an umbrella policy that will cover pretty much everything.
Bottom line is that if there is proof that someone caused the damage, that person will be responsible for the damages. With a "he said she said case", it will be a wash - i.e. the homeowner claims you broke the window and you claim you did not and there are no witnesses - the homeowner will be stuck with the costs.
Todd
Todd, I'm not busting your chops or anything , but I posted 3 links regarding case law in 3 different states that held that the homeowners assume the risk and associated cost by moving next to a golf course. One stated that "the majority of US courts have ruled against the homeowners" for this very reason. One appeals court overturned a homeowners liability finding and ruled against the golf course. None that I ran across metioned any liability on the part of the golfer. I didn't cherry-pick these to suit my argument. They were just the first 3 I ran into. Do you have any links to support your contention of golfer liability in these cases ?
I dont think that you were wrong to pay for the widow. But the homeowner should have been a little more understanding 9 concidering where he lives) and refused the money.
this reminds me, once i pulled a fairway par 5 second shot onto a patio table one sunday afternoon, ...as i drove by the owner was holding his ball up to me and menacingly said i amost hit his wife (having a drink there with others), ...i of course had yelled fore, ....i of course apologized...but he kept the ball and stayed ******.
it of course affected me for the rest of the game ...and still to this day. he had an terraced elevated back yard area, th OB was staked right off the doglegged right true fairway, ....his patio table maybe 30 yards away....!
The reasonable person standard is the test that is used, and I think you will find that a reasonable person would expect a certain amount of golfballs on their property if they lived along a golf course. That same person would also expect for any damages to be paid for by the negligent party.
They can assume or expect all day long, but under the law it is called "assumption of risk," and if you build your house along a golf course, you are assuming the risk that it's going to get hit by a golfball.
It's really that simple, fellas. I can give you my lawyers' number if you want, but that is the law.
this reminds me, once i pulled a fairway par 5 second shot onto a patio table one sunday afternoon, ...as i drove by the owner was holding his ball up to me and menacingly said i amost hit his wife (having a drink there with others), ...i of course had yelled fore, ....i of course apologized...but he kept the ball and stayed ******.
I think that there is a certain immediate, visceral reaction one has when they or one of their loved ones almost gets hit. The reflexive response is to be mad. That's probably what happened in your case. Upon reflection later he probably realized that "hey, I'm sitting 30 yards from the middle of the fairway, perhaps I should watch out for stray balls"... or maybe not, he could've just bought the house and been clueless.
On the "assumption of risk"....isn't the golfer assuming a risk that if he cuts the dog leg and misses that he may break something that he has to pay for or is his only risk thak of a "stroke and distance" penalty (maybe a lost ball), for being out of bounds.
On the "assumption of risk"....isn't the golfer assuming a risk that if he cuts the dog leg and misses that he may break something that he has to pay for or is his only risk thak of a "stroke and distance" penalty (maybe a lost ball), for being out of bounds.
I would say the latter. The only risk the customer should worry about are the penalty strokes. If I want to play a fade off the tee should I have to worry that if it turns out to be a slice, that it dangers someone's property? What kind of golf is that? I play a muni that's loaded w/ houses and streets. If I had to worry about where houses were every time I shape the ball, I woudn't bother playing. If I had a $1 for evertime someone in our 4some hit a house over the last 10 years, well, I'd have about $300 in my pocket. What are we supposed to do, go leave notes everywhere? There are many houses there that put up nets at the angle of the ball flight now. So, they know who's paying for it- themselves. It makes a great practice area for them too!
Which is why I don't have my name printed on my golf balls!
Seriously though, if I knew I had damaged someone's property (it hasn't happened yet), I would probably offer some sort of restitution if the situation called warranted it. I just would feel better knowing I tried to do the right thing, personal responsibility and all.
My nephew took the down chute of a gutter off with an errant shot on a par 4. We told them at the pro shop, and were informed that the course would take care of it because that particular house pre-dated the course. Houses which didn't pre-date the course weren't covered, and were the responsibility of the homeowner.
What's all this stuff about the homeowner being responsible because he built near a golf course? Next it'll be the Corvette owner's fault his car was stolen because it's such a fine and valuable auto. The spirit of this game we love is to do what is right and fair. If I launch something into the air, I'm responsible for everthing it does, unless it is influenced by another. Homeowners not building on the course? If you can't afford to pay for the damage you cause, play some other game where that attitude is more acceptable.
March 1st, 2006, 11:09 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
