[mike_beene]

In my prior life I represented the Dallas Athletic Club in a case like this.We received an appellate opinion out of Texas but I cant remember the name of the lead plaintiff.If one of you has Westlaw access,DAC was one of the parties.Seems like they tried to prove trespass,but couldn't prove intent.I remember going through the changes Nicklaus made to the hole in question.

[Steve Pozaric]

In my prior life I represented the Dallas Athletic Club in a case like this.We received an appellate opinion out of Texas but I cant remember the name of the lead plaintiff.If one of you has Westlaw access,DAC was one of the parties.Seems like they tried to prove trespass,but couldn't prove intent.I remember going through the changes Nicklaus made to the hole in question.

One of the interesting aspects of the varying laws from state to state is intent.  In some states, it is intent to commit the trespass.  In other states, it is merely the intent to do the act which even inadvertently results in the trespass.  In the states with the latter rule, trespass by the golfer who hit the errant shot is much easier to prove.

[Sean_A]

It doesn't matter to me what the law states or doesn't.  Clubs have a moral duty to keep their neighbours safe from golfing activities just as golfers have a duty to keep other golfers safe.  Its common sense, good practice and helps to maintain good relations.  If clubs don't make reasonable attempts to do so, they are asking for trouble.  Besides, often times, some neighbours are club members. 

[Chris Cupit]

I'm a lawyer, and I can pretty much assure everybody that there is no good legal solution, only a golf-architecture solution.

This is what I think is the Google satellite image for the property.  If I am seeing this correctly, the trees that were cut down occupied the patch of brownish dirt near the tee.  Those are some funky semi-shanks if they are hitting the plaintiff's house.  John Buczek, some of your guys need a lesson!
"Thousands of balls" on the plaintiff's property ?  How much play does Winged Foot East get? 
"Outings have been disrupted"?  How many outings are played at Winged Foot?  How do I get on that outing list?

Anyway, for your viewing pleasure...

http://www.zabasearch.com/maps/?sname1=ANTHONY%20PECORA&sname=ANTHONY%20J%20PECORA&first=ANTHONY&last=PECORA&middle=J&state=NY&address=6%20MAGNETTI%20CIR&city=MAMARONECK&zipcode=10543&&cm=&cy=&phone=

Chuck,

I've played dozens of rounds on both courses there and number 6 east plays long.  It's uphill, all carry and the actual yardage is easily 200 yards.  Years ago I would see the occasional ball end up on that guys property as an even slightly pushed 3 or 4 iron would rattle around the green side trees and end up in the yard.  The ground slopes down and away to the right--straight towards his property although I don't think the balls slowly rolling onto his property are the issue.

I do agree though that if the brownish area is all that was removed, then I do not see how that tree removal had ANY impact on the homeowner or how it increased the danger to him.

6 east is one of the most underrated par threes on a course full of some great one shotters.  It would be a shame if a solution could not be reached.

[ChipRoyce]

I know of two such cases.

In the first, a lawyer bought a house which was obviously much too close to a golf hole on a very old course, and then sued the club to move the hole in question.  He won his judgment ... but the club did manage to have the "safety situation" of the new hole enscribed on the deed so a future homeowner could not claim ignorance.

In the second, a young child was struck by a tee shot on a hole which was dangerously close to the backyard in a planned unit development.  The homeowner/parents sued not only the golf course architect and the developer, but also the real estate agent who sold them the home ... and got a BIG judgment against the real estate broker.

I know everyone in America thinks this is a clear-cut case because the golf course was there first ... but it's not.  In fact, in most of the world, a few golf balls over the property line are enough to require that the golf hole be changed (or a foolproof net be put up).  This has been the demise of fine golf holes at Royal Melbourne East and at Moortown.

Tom;
I'm guessing that the first example is the impact to Manchester County Club? That was the best example that came to mind and unfortunately necessitated the building of a brand new hole, rather than any other kind of remediation.

BTW - it was hard to replace the old hole, but your team did a great job on the replacement.

[M.W._Burrows]

Chip,

I think you mean Essex County Club in Manchester-by-the-sea, MA.

How are you?

[Jay Flemma]

Your understanding is wrong...Charles...I'm a contracts lawyer.

What was it that Danny DeVito said in the movie, Other People's Money: "You know what happens when the commies take over, the first thing they do is shoot all the lawyers!"

Lets face it, this would be a good start.

He also said in real life:

Of course I've got lawyers. They are like nuclear weapons, I've got em 'cause everyone else has. But as soon as you use them they screw everything up.--Danny DeVito

Jay, with all due respect, aren't you the one that is calling for the writ of complaint for this case, or is just my imagination?

Just so you don't have to go back and look at what you said, and/or before you change it, or threaten legal action for it to be removed:

Posted by: Jay Flemma      Posted on: October 14, 2008, 04:43:05 pm
Someone should post the case here.

and

Posted by: Jay Flemma      Posted on: October 14, 2008, 04:47:30 pm
I'm curious to see it...it makes little sense sitting here far away in Manhattan, but I was just there a couple weeks ago...I saw it first hand.  You'd have to overclub pretty significantly to nail that house.

Further, I have another issue with another comment:

We should go to the Brit system - loser pays the winners legal fees.

Yes, that would work good for a person who can't afford a halfway decent lawyer now, wouldn't it?. Only in Jay Flemma's America, where if you disagree, you get sued. (or get threatened to be sued)

GMAFB.

You know what?  I don't think you're charles faquar at all.  I think that's a fake name and you're someone hiding behind it.  It's awfully suspicious for a newbie with 8 posts as of this writing to spend two of his first eight sending loud and obnoxious bromides against someone they (theoretically) never met...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Yo Charles,

Have you something against lawyers?  All I know is that when that Exxon Mobil truck rear ends your car and you need back surgery as a result, you'll come to a trial lawyer's office seeking compensation...on a contingency basis no less.


www.theonion.com/content/news/mel_brooks_starts_nonprofit

[Chris Kane]

Charles, how do you propose that people access justice besides going to a lawyer?

[Jay Flemma]

Steve, Chris, just ignore him, I figured out who he really is...and he's not who he claims to be.

[Tom Yost]

... constant trespassers...

What?  I thought that only happens at my local muni!   The image of Donald Trump hopping the fence to retrieve his errant ProV1 is freaking hilarious.

[Mark_F]

Charles, how do you propose that people access justice besides going to a lawyer?

You do it yourself.

[Chris Kane]

You do it yourself.

Surely you jest.  The idea that people can represent themselves successfully (except particular types of dispute where the process is designed for self-representation ) is a fallacy.  I have seen what happens when unrepresented litigants are pitted against a barrister - its a joke.  Even lawyers use another lawyer when they're personally involved.

I have no particular fondness for the legal profession, but to suggest that we can do without them is ridiculous.
 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Mark,

Try doing brain surgery on yourself.

[Joe Bausch]

Here's a Google Map picture (April 2007) to add to the link provided earlier.  I would think the owner of the middle house of the three would be joining the lawsuit!

[Brad Klein]

The first cast Doak mentions is surely Essex County Club in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Ma.

As for pre-existing conditions where a homeowner moves in or builds after a hole has been functioning, states provide no statutory protection for a facility in such cases, esp. because the nature of the danger is not static and is always evolving, whether through technology, play, or changing trees. And you don't want it to go to trial,. since by definition, only one of the 12 jury members (on average) plays golf and the rest probably hate the game and the whole world of private clubs.

[Mark Smolens]

Brad, if the complaint is seeking some sort of equitable relief in the form of an injunction, there is no jury.  You are dependent on the vagaries of the luck of the draw in the Chancery Division. . .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()