News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« on: February 27, 2020, 11:36:22 PM »

Quaker Ridge Faces Additional Proceedings Regarding Damages Owed To Neighbor From Errant Tee Shots
A New York appellate court has issued the most recent decision in the long running saga of venerable Quaker Ridge Golf Club‘s legal liability for wayward shots landing in an adjacent neighbor’s yard.
For the uninitiated, in November 2007, Leon and Gail Behar purchased a home adjacent to Quaker Ridge’s second hole. The following summer, a storm brought down an 80 foot tree on the golf course/neighbor boundary, bringing other trees down with it. Until their demise, the trees had provided a buffer protecting the Behars from errant tee shots.
In April 2010 (yes, a decade ago), Mr. and Ms. Behar filed suit, alleging that the club had “failed to take the necessary and proper steps to prevent the incursion of golf balls onto their property.” To my personal surprise, the New York Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s initial denial of the Behars claim, finding that, even though they chose to purchase a home adjacent to a long present golf club, the club was barred “from operating its golf course in a manner which constitutes a private nuisance and causes a trespass upon the [Behars’ property].” The upshot of the Appellate Court’s ruling, at least in the state of New York, was to make clear that golf clubs bear responsibility to keep balls within the confines of their property, or at least to ensure they do not violate the rights of adjacent property owners.
Having resolved the claim for injunctive relief, the Appellate Court sent the case back to the trial court to address the Behars’ claim for money damages which they alleged resulted from the wrongful invasion of golf balls. On this claim, the trial court was not especially sympathetic to Mr. and Ms. Behar, awarding them only $7,323.75, representing partial loss of use and enjoyment of their property for six months. The trial court rejected claims by the Behars that they sustained permanent injury to their property that would warrant damages for loss of market value. The trial court also rejected their claim to recover costs of planting 20 trees measuring 45 feet in height, and the installation of a sprinkler system.
Unhappy with the court’s determination of damages, Mr. and Ms. Behar appealed. The Appellate Court’s recent decision affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the claim of damages for permanent injury. As the Appellate Court explained:
“We agree with the court’s determination to reject the testimony of the Behars’ expert witness that there was a 40% permanent diminution in the fair market value of the Behars’ property as his opinion was based upon speculation … Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that the Club made significant modifications to the second hole, which were effective in alleviating the incursion of golf balls onto the Behars’ property. Thus, we agree with the court’s determination to reject the Behars’ contention that they suffered a permanent injury to their property.”
The Appellate Court similarly upheld the trial court’s rejection of damages for the trees planted by the Behars. According to the Appellate Court,
“Furthermore, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination declining to award the Behars damages to reimburse them for allegedly undertaking certain measures to prevent the incursion of golf balls onto their property inasmuch as the Behars failed to demonstrate that they were reasonably warranted, especially in light of the Club’s installation of a 40-foot-tall net adjacent to their property.”
The Appellate Court did, however, conclude that the trial court was too restrictive in its conclusions regarding the period in which the Behars were unable to enjoy full use of their property. The Appellate Court sent the case back to the trial court for recalculation of these damages.
Our previous posts on this case can be found here and here.





« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 11:41:06 PM by Steve_ Shaffer »
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2020, 09:03:09 AM »
Some folks just can't let things go. The wear and tear on their psyche just can't be worth it.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2020, 06:10:29 PM »
Some folks just can't let things go. The wear and tear on their psyche just can't be worth it.


  The whole problem goes father back than just golf balls being struck into backyards....
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2020, 08:28:30 PM »
You buy a house on a golf course, you assume the risk of errant shots on your property. The trial court got it right. Not rocket science.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2020, 09:57:37 PM »
You buy a house on a golf course, you assume the risk of errant shots on your property. The trial court got it right. Not rocket science.

Nonsense. It's the responsibility of golfers and clubs to take precautions for the safety others. It's reasonable to expect very few balls will leave a course and create a dangerous situation for those on private and public land. Its attitudes like this which help give golf an awful reputation. Golfers want to launch a circular missile a few hundred yards? Great, do it on golfing land. Golfers can't keep their balls on their own property? Buy more land. Redesign the course. Limit how far the ball goes. But jeepers, don't expect neighbours to put up with bullshit just because they are next door to a golf course. Golfers need to think more about the big picture. That picture doesn't look great for golf. It's time to act more responsibly on many levels.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #5 on: February 29, 2020, 03:26:30 PM »
The law on this subject is very different in the UK and Australia, where clubs are liable for safety and required to make changes to address demonstrated problems, than in the USA.  However "buyer beware" is not the accepted precedent even here; if the golf hole is located too close to the boundary it is not grandfathered in.  We just have a much higher tolerance for what is considered "dangerous " here.


One fact of the case that wasn't clear to me is whether the trees that mitigated problems for decades were on the club's property or the homeowner's?  It seems that would have bearing on who was required to replace them.






BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #6 on: February 29, 2020, 05:25:12 PM »
Sean -


If I buy property on a golf course, I am buying in full knowledge that it will be hit by errant balls. That "problem" should be reflected in a reduced purchase price for the property. Why should a golf club underwrite that risk if it was voluntarily undertaken by the home owner? It shouldn't, however sympathetic the homeowner. These sorts of risk-shifting issues are at the heart of tort law. They come up in innumerable contexts.


(As TD notes, if the club changes they way it operates the course that increases risks to neighboring houses, maybe there is a claim, thought I think even then the case is a skinny one. The trial court got it right and ruled consistently with the law in most states.)


Should I be able to recover damages from the Atlanta Braves if I am hit by a foul ball? The law says, correctly, no recovery for reasons that are similar to those that apply to the homeowner above. By attending the game I have assumed the risk of being hit by a foul ball.


The other problem is that shifting the costs caused by errant balls on the club (which would be nuts) would put most clubs out of business. Few could redesign their courses or buy more land or build high, quarter mile long screens. Even if they could, there would be no end to the defenses a club would be obligated to pay for if more homes were built on the edges of the golf course.


Bob
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 05:27:03 PM by BCrosby »

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #7 on: February 29, 2020, 05:36:19 PM »

Bob,


I think the key thing here was that trees that were previously protecting the house from errant golf balls were downed in a storm. As far as I can gather the trees were on the club's property and so a material change on the club's property was to blame. I do agree however that the home owner is being a pratt.


Jon

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2020, 05:46:22 PM »
Sean -


If I buy property on a golf course, I am buying in full knowledge that it will be hit by errant balls. That "problem" should be reflected in a reduced purchase price for the property. Why should a golf club underwrite that risk if it was voluntarily undertaken by the home owner? It shouldn't, however sympathetic the homeowner. These sorts of risk-shifting issues are at the heart of tort law. They come up in innumerable contexts.


(As TD notes, if the club changes they way it operates the course that increases risks to neighboring houses, maybe there is a claim, thought I think even then the case is a skinny one. The trial court got it right and ruled consistently with the law in most states.)


Should I be able to recover damages from the Atlanta Braves if I am hit by a foul ball? The law says, correctly, no recovery for reasons that are similar to those that apply to the homeowner above. By attending the game I have assumed the risk of being hit by a foul ball.


The other problem is that shifting the costs caused by errant balls on the club (which would be nuts) would put most clubs out of business. Few could redesign their courses or buy more land or build high, quarter mile long screens. Even if they could, there would be no end to the defenses a club would be obligated to pay for if more homes were built on the edges of the golf course.


Bob


While the rank and file scream
"don't take my hot equipment away"
15-30 extra yards on an errant shot by an athletic player is a real thing when it comes to safety corridors

"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #9 on: February 29, 2020, 05:50:03 PM »
Jon -


I have some sympathy for the homeowner, but I'm not sure that the felling a some trees changes the legal analysis in any big way. They knew their house was on a golf course, no? The homeowners would know that trees come and go, no?


The law, however people bitch about it, does try in torts cases to come up with solutions that are fair to all concerned. That means being fair to big, bad, evil, wealthy golf clubs. The law can't be in the business of always favoring the most appealing litigant, at least in cases like these.


Bob

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2020, 06:10:33 PM »
Bob

Paying to attend a sporting event is nothing like being bombed by golf balls when on your own property. And it's not about big bad private clubs either. But this largely shouldn't be about the law. It's about taking responsibility for one's actions even if it means a serious investment to take reasonable precautions for the safety of golfers and non golfers. Its reasonable if a few balls land in a garden, but what about 20? How about 50? Golfers and golf get a bad rep when we fail to cooperate in good faith with our neighbours. IMO, the law in this matter will shift against golf because it makes sense that all deserve protection from the activity of their neighbours.

Ciao
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 06:19:20 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Sam Kestin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #11 on: February 29, 2020, 06:41:58 PM »
This might seem overly simplistic, but my view here is that those who buy property on a golf course should be assuming the risk of golf balls entering their property at any time.

If I recall correctly, this case is something like twelve years in the making and the meter is still running as there is likely to be a forthcoming appeal to the recent decision. A rule that places the burden on the buyer to assess the risk (and their tolerance for it) sidesteps the dozen years of litigation where plaintiffs and defendants have to resolve issues like "how many golf balls a day constitutes a nuisance" and "by how much did the property value decrease as a result of the changing number of golf balls per day."

The market should be able to price in the risk associated with buying a home located on a golf course and buyers should have to evaluate for themselves if they are willing to freely undertake such a risk. This (to me) seems like it should be treated no differently that someone who buys a house next to a freeway, train tracks, airport, etc. Such an approach would save all the attorney's fees and the years on years of fighting over the fine points of every individual golf ball case.

Moreover, I find the "have your cake and eat it too" phenomenon with these golf ball cases to be a bit annoying. I'm sure the brokers trying to sell the homes next to the golf course are happy to mention the frontage to a high-end club like Quaker Ridge in an effort to increase the perceived value of the property, but then want to have a legal avenue on the back side to recover when it turns out (quite predictably) that living on a golf course has its disadvantages in addition to its advantages.

I also find the "I'm shocked to find there is gambling going on in here" component of this story annoying as well. At a very basic level, it just seems patently ridiculous to me that anyone buying a house on a golf course could possibly turn around and pretend it caught them off-guard that incursions from golf balls might be part of the equation. If I recall correctly, felled trees or no felled trees, this guy bought a house on the inside corner of a slight dogleg right roughly 220-240 yards from the tee.

Can he really with a straight face try to claim that golf ball incursions were unforeseeable at the time of purchase?

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2020, 06:44:14 PM »
Not sure it's correct to talk about "US law" here.  It will depend on which state you're in.  And while I haven't studied it in detail, I do know that course design is a factor.  Is the hole designed in such a manner that it creates a legal "nuisance"?  Might the course's obligation to avoid a nuisance change as distance increases?  More complicated than just a binary legal rule on whether homeowner assumed risk or not.  For example, if Sam is right, why would you design a dogleg with a house OB and inside the dogleg 220 yards off the tee?
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 06:48:18 PM by Bernie Bell »

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #13 on: February 29, 2020, 07:17:51 PM »

The homeowner bought a vacant lot from  a developer/builder . 
The Behars filed one lawsuit against Quaker Ridge, alleging that it was maintaining a nuisance by not preventing the golf ball onslaught. They also sued the developer, claiming that it acted inappropriately by developing and selling the home to the Behars without adequately disclosing the risks.


http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/?p=4225

Even though his home was built decades after the establishment of the club,  the Appeals Court held the homeowner was entitled to relief . The case returned to a trial court and the Behars  didn't like the result and filed another Appeal.


Now, the Appeals Court upheld the Trial Court's decision
however, they did conclude that the trial court was too restrictive in its conclusions regarding the period in which the Behars were unable to enjoy full use of their property. The Appellate Court sent the case back to the trial court for recalculation of these damages.
That's where the case is now.
The case against the developer is still pending!
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 07:20:29 PM by Steve_ Shaffer »
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #14 on: February 29, 2020, 07:40:42 PM »
Having watched hundreds of thousands of players through the years I can only say that if keeping balls off of adjacent private property became a requirement there would be virtually zero courses built going forward. It’s an unrealistic expectation.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #15 on: February 29, 2020, 09:32:07 PM »
Sam


Thats a good term...unforeseeable.  Its a term which cuts all ways.  The question is, why isn't the onus on the guy doing the action which is potentially dangerous when what is being done is obviously predictable to some degree?  Once golfers see shots whacked into gardens more than a few times, that action moves from unforeeable to foreseeable.  To then keep doing that action is imo a culpable action. Who else is at fault for creating a dangerous situation?  Are we gonna blame the neighbour because they own a property adjacent to the course?  Does that neighbour not have the expectation to be safe on their own property?  As I say, a few errant shots is bad luck.  More than a few is a developing pattern and one that should be addressed if safety is an issue. What is the deal with golfers thinking their pastime is important enough to warrant risking the safety of neighbours and just saying oh well, the dumb ass shouldn't have a bought that house?  This is an attitude which stuns me.  Its no wonder golfers have a terrible reputation and people want to plow over courses for other uses.  Its time to wake up and smell the coffee.  Golf is on the rocks for its undulgence in using resources...why give folks another reason to stab at golf(ers)?


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jon Cavalier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2020, 01:52:16 AM »
We went through all this in the last thread, but I’m of the mind that when a property owner buys a house on a golf course they assume both the risk of balls in their yard and the benefit of the stable property value that comes from knowing his backyard won’t abut a subdivision in 10 years. For me, it’s no different than buying property next to a music venue and then complaining about the noise, or a garbage dump and then complaining about the smell. If you knowingly come to the nuisance, you be prepared to live with it.* And besides, you know that if Quaker Ridge was proposed to be sold off and chopped up into townhouses, this homeowner would be the first one at the zoning hearing opposing that development.


But regardless, Steve is right - this beef is about much more than trees and golf balls.


*if the trees that were shielding the home before they fell were on club property, they should be required to replace them or otherwise return the property to status quo.
Golf Photos via
Twitter: @linksgems
Instagram: @linksgems

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2020, 02:21:53 AM »

Jon,


but when the property was originally bought there was much less risk. Through changes on the club's property (not within the control of the homeowner) this changed. The onus must therefore be on the club to rectify this new problem though I agree the homeowner is going a little overboard.


Jon

Jon Cavalier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2020, 02:45:33 AM »
Jon:


I was under the impression that most of the changes that increased the risk since the property were made by the homeowner. It’s possible I’m mistaken about that.


To be clear, I certainly agree that if the club made changes in the time since the property was acquired that increased the risk (including the felling of trees, whether intentional or by Mother Nature, on club property), the club is and should be responsible for that.


Jon Cavalier
Golf Photos via
Twitter: @linksgems
Instagram: @linksgems

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2020, 12:13:14 PM »
This is a good example of what architects, who work on inner city courses, are seeing more of in our day to day work. The problems have become significantly worse in the last 10 years. It began to show up twenty years ago, but the last decade has been brutal, seeing a sizable increase in that work. As equipment improves, the off-line shots go further off line. A problem today, often was not a problem 10 years ago. Many future problems are being held off by a significant well placed stand of trees that "mitigates" the problem "enough" to be "tolerated" by the "current" homeowner. many new home owners do not tolerate even a single ball. You have to remember many new home owners know nothing about the game. Nobody selling houses will point out the risk. They discover it after purchase.

In Canada, we went from a system of assumed risk when the course was built before the houses to the golf course is responsible. One ruling set precedent and all rulings have followed the same pattern. It's now the way it works and that is not going to change.

It changed how problem areas have to be addressed in inner city golf courses in Canada, because the court sided with home owners and public safety even where the roads and houses followed the club.

My general experience is golfers tend to form an opinion on what they think is reasonable, yet few have every read an actual ruling to understand what the judge is saying and what it means from that point forward.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 12:17:55 PM by Ian Andrew »
"Appreciate the constructive; ignore the destructive." -- John Douglas

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2020, 01:37:45 PM »
Well said Ian. Indeed Ian’s comments above could have been posted in relation to several recent and current topic threads.
Golfs playing footprint has got considerably bigger over the last couple of decades and will continue to do so unless something significant happens equipment wise.
And these days we live in a far more ‘claim and litigate’ based society with seemingly more ambulance chasers around. And insurance etc costs have to be covered in some way or other and it’s usually by higher membership subscriptions and green fees.
Atb

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2020, 01:56:02 PM »
Jon:


I was under the impression that most of the changes that increased the risk since the property were made by the homeowner. It’s possible I’m mistaken about that.


To be clear, I certainly agree that if the club made changes in the time since the property was acquired that increased the risk (including the felling of trees, whether intentional or by Mother Nature, on club property), the club is and should be responsible for that.


Jon Cavalier



Jon,


I am not sure who is at fault but was under the opposite impression to you. It is difficult to see how the home owners  could do anything that would increase the danger to their property (by property I mean entire plot not just buildings) In the end, if both parties are open and willing there is usually an acceptable solution.


Jon

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2020, 12:57:11 AM »
With OB tight right on the first 7-8 holes, it's no wonder that there is a problem.  With no real driving range either, it is a slicer's nightmare.

My initial reaction is that it is too bad for the homeowners and that they shouldn't have bought a house on the right side of a golf hole.  But if it were a shooting club instead of a golf club, I'd agree that shotgun blasts that regularly get through the perimeter and hit neighboring houses would be a problem that the club would be expected to solve.  And I guess that golf balls really aren't that much different. 




 

Jon Cavalier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2020, 02:13:12 AM »
Jon:


I was under the impression that most of the changes that increased the risk since the property were made by the homeowner. It’s possible I’m mistaken about that.


To be clear, I certainly agree that if the club made changes in the time since the property was acquired that increased the risk (including the felling of trees, whether intentional or by Mother Nature, on club property), the club is and should be responsible for that.


Jon Cavalier



Jon,


I am not sure who is at fault but was under the opposite impression to you. It is difficult to see how the home owners  could do anything that would increase the danger to their property (by property I mean entire plot not just buildings) In the end, if both parties are open and willing there is usually an acceptable solution.


Jon


If they had a line of large trees on the back edge of their property and cut them down to better their views, keep leaves out of their pool or allow more sunlight in, they would have increased the danger to their property. I’m under the impression that this is what happened, but I don’t know that for sure.


I suppose you could argue that balls hitting trees that were rooted in the homeowners’ property is the same nuisance as a ball landing on the roof of the house, and so it makes no difference if the homeowner cuts those trees down, since either way a ball is touching their property. I’d disagree with that argument.


Jon Cavalier
« Last Edit: March 03, 2020, 02:23:17 AM by Jon Cavalier »
Golf Photos via
Twitter: @linksgems
Instagram: @linksgems

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Quaker Ridge Litigation Update
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2020, 07:16:03 AM »
They will call in Hanse or some such and move the entire hole down range 75 yards and push the errant slice zone past the two houses on the disputed corner into the area of today's 3rd tee... there's room to do it (moving the greensite north into a vast turf nursery) and with today's bucks and technology, it will be seemless in a few years. I will miss the original green site, but whatever--we're in a fucked up world that can't resolve disputes.


The 2nd isn't original to the first Quaker/Tillie route anyway... the older 2nd was a short par 3 played from the current tennis courts' parking lot to the location of today's primary tee. And thus the older "3rd hole" was actually just a shorter version of the current 2nd, played from about today's forward tee.
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -