Who should get the credit?- Golf Course Architects, Golf Clubs or Lawyers?

[Matthew Hunt]

I was looking a legal issue concerning a neighbor who wants golf holes rerouted due to the threat of balls on his property. What struck me was considering the amount of amount on anecdotal stories of this happening, there seems to be surprisingly few cases that actually make it to the courtroom worldwide. In the UK although there are  many disputes reported, there is rarely make it to the courtroom. My question is who deserves the credit for this? Is due to Golf Course Architects doing great work, golf clubs being diligent or is it lawyers settling out off court?


On that point, I think I remember an Architect on here putting up a rough formula for how much space there should be between the the centerline of a hole and a residential boundary. Does anyone know a formula that is commonly accepted?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matthew,


I occasionally take a court case to defend golf courses, and reject those where the course is clearly too close to houses, or other holed and there is an accident of some sort that is design related.  I think its the legal system, to be frank. At least in the US.


As to broad safety guidelines, well, good luck getting gca's to print safety guidelines.  The official line is that every situation varies, and in reality it does.  The Guy Rando ULI book on golf course developments did provide some guidelines, but I am not sure I have either seen newer ones published, nor many changes in the basic layouts.  Their recommendation was 350 foot corridors for single loaded holes, at the LZ, with 150 feet left and 200 right, or maybe 160-190 feet, I think, rather than a balanced 175-175 foot distribution, but I'm going from memory.


Since then, I have done some statistical research on tee shot distribution, using a few more studies now available, and I don't think that is far off, usually proposing 360-375 feet or so, but I don't see the need to go to 400 as a few courses have done, at least if land is tight.


but, I'm just one guy!

[Forrest Richardson]

I don't think we should ever give credit to the lawyers! 

Mike Hurdzan and I just found out a case we have been handling — on opposite sides I might add — was settled after nine years. That is NINE.

You are correct, they rarely make it to a trial. But, when they do, it sets precedent and I am always interested to see how a jury or judge rules. Often it creates issues.

BTW — There is no "set standard" on set-backs. Every golf hole, every course, every situation is different. My opinion on the "grade" due GCAs is high — perhaps "A". When I see a particularly poor design situation with not enough room, it typically is a self-designed facility, an engineer-designed course or a very old property that has become outdated. Rarely do I see an practicing GCA commit malpractice.

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps the threat and/or the cost of legal action tends to encourage folks, clubs, companies, householders, organisations etc etc not go down the legal route but instead to reach some sort of quiet agreement between themselves? And quiet agreements would seem less likely to become public knowledge.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

In my experience consulting for golf clubs, liability issues are handled very differently in the UK and Australia than in the USA. 


In the USA, everything is a negotiation, with lots of legal fees on all sides. 


Outside of the USA, the standard for proving there is a problem is much less onerous -- you collect a handful of golf balls, and then a judge will tell the club to fix the problem!


So, it's your system over there that makes resolution unlikely to go to court.

[Rob Marshall]

I can't imagine a golf course being built around an existing housing development. The course usually comes first. Whatever happened to " you knew the house was on a golf course when you bought it"? We have a neighbor on my course complaining about the mowers in the morning. The course has been there for 60 years and now it's a problem?

[JohnVDB]

We have a neighbor on my course complaining about the mowers in the morning. The course has been there for 60 years and now it's a problem?

When I worked the Futures tour, we had a 7:10 first tee time off the 10h tee.  At 6:50 the the grounds crew hadn’t touched the green.  We panicked.  Exactly at 7 they showed up, mowed the green and cut the hole before the group reached there tee shots.  Turns out a neighbor across the street had sued to prohibit the crew from working on the green before 7.

[Tom_Doak]

I can't imagine a golf course being built around an existing housing development. The course usually comes first. Whatever happened to " you knew the house was on a golf course when you bought it"? We have a neighbor on my course complaining about the mowers in the morning. The course has been there for 60 years and now it's a problem?

Unfortunately, who came first is not relevant in court.  The only way the golf course is fully protected from potential liability is if it is written into the title for the house; that's a condition of settlements, so that a future homeowner is bound by the settlement.  Interestingly, though, developers of golf communities almost never put such a condition in the title for the properties they sold, for fear of raising a red flag to the homeowner and lowering the price . . . instead, they passed on the liability to the golf club.

[Sean_A]

I can't imagine a golf course being built around an existing housing development. The course usually comes first. Whatever happened to " you knew the house was on a golf course when you bought it"? We have a neighbor on my course complaining about the mowers in the morning. The course has been there for 60 years and now it's a problem?

Unfortunately, who came first is not relevant in court.  The only way the golf course is fully protected from potential liability is if it is written into the title for the house; that's a condition of settlements, so that a future homeowner is bound by the settlement.  Interestingly, though, developers of golf communities almost never put such a condition in the title for the properties they sold, for fear of raising a red flag to the homeowner and lowering the price . . . instead, they passed on the liability to the golf club.

Even this is suspect. A person on their property has a reasonable expectation not to be placed in danger by neighboring activities. It makes no difference who was there first. This is only going to get worse for golf courses in the coming years and rightfully so. I have no idea why golfers think it's not a problem to bombard gardens,  houses and roads. That sort of thinking is out of date.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately, who came first is not relevant in court.  The only way the golf course is fully protected from potential liability is if it is written into the title for the house; that's a condition of settlements, so that a future homeowner is bound by the settlement.  Interestingly, though, developers of golf communities almost never put such a condition in the title for the properties they sold, for fear of raising a red flag to the homeowner and lowering the price . . . instead, they passed on the liability to the golf club.

Even this is suspect. A person on their property has a reasonable expectation not to be placed in danger by neighboring activities. It makes no difference who was there first. This is only going to get worse for golf courses in the coming years and rightfully so. I have no idea why golfers think it's not a problem to bombard gardens,  houses and roads. That sort of thinking is out of date.

Sean:


I understand your view but it is very difficult to design anything around an ever-moving target.  That's yet another reason it would be a good thing if an equipment rollback was considered.


If someone buys property next to a golf course surely there should be some expectation of buyer beware, shouldn't there?


Roads are another matter; you can't ask the general public to assume the risk, so golf holes that border roads will have to be addressed.  Royal Melbourne, for one, has had to deal with a few of those already.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rob & Tom,


Not to hijack the thread, but I experienced another example of “who came first” not being relevant.


Little did I know when I became a terminal manager for Standard Oil that John D Rockefeller himself bought the property back in the 1870s. At the time, it was remote farmland, the perfect place to build a terminal, John D himself thought.


Well, fast forward more than 100 years and the terminal was surrounded by housing. Even worse, the vapor recovery system was on the border of the property and the closest neighbor insisted on cooking out right near the VR system despite being advised if something went wrong - a spark catching gasoline vapors - the entire neighborhood could be gone.


The neighbor insisted he had a right to cook out regardless of when Rockefeller built the terminal or what the level of safety risk might be.


Sure enough Standard Oil spent the money to relocate the vapor recovery system being quite sure they would lose in any Court case, especially if disaster struck.

[Sean_A]

Unfortunately, who came first is not relevant in court.  The only way the golf course is fully protected from potential liability is if it is written into the title for the house; that's a condition of settlements, so that a future homeowner is bound by the settlement.  Interestingly, though, developers of golf communities almost never put such a condition in the title for the properties they sold, for fear of raising a red flag to the homeowner and lowering the price . . . instead, they passed on the liability to the golf club.

Even this is suspect. A person on their property has a reasonable expectation not to be placed in danger by neighboring activities. It makes no difference who was there first. This is only going to get worse for golf courses in the coming years and rightfully so. I have no idea why golfers think it's not a problem to bombard gardens,  houses and roads. That sort of thinking is out of date.

Sean:


I understand your view but it is very difficult to design anything around an ever-moving target.  That's yet another reason it would be a good thing if an equipment rollback was considered.


If someone buys property next to a golf course surely there should be some expectation of buyer beware, shouldn't there?


Roads are another matter; you can't ask the general public to assume the risk, so golf holes that border roads will have to be addressed.  Royal Melbourne, for one, has had to deal with a few of those already.

Tom

No, I don't buy the buyer beware theory when it comes to safety. We can discuss what level of safety is a reasonable expectation and the measures to mitigate the risk, but nobody should be expected to live in danger because a golf course is next door, regardless of who was there first. I believe this attitude will become more prevalent among course neighbours and in courts. Furthermore, golfers should embrace the idea or risk being even more hated by the general public. Golfers need to wake up to the mood in the room and fully understand how the game is perceived and make efforts to become safer, more sustainable, more ecologically friendly and more involved in local communities.

To me, safety and sustainability are more pressing reasons for rollback than any notions of recapturing design intent. I am not overly keen on rollback, but I can read the writing on the wall as to why it should happen. Bottom line is golfers need to be less selfish about their hobby, think of the big picture and get better at publicising improvements.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Well, I hope you (and the homeowners) like those 100-foot-tall fences.


I'm curious though how you reconcile the need for safety with the public footpaths on many of your favorite UK courses?  I can think of many that are extremely dangerous if the walkers aren't paying attention.

[Thomas Dai]

I'm curious though how you reconcile the need for safety with the public footpaths on many of your favorite UK courses?  I can think of many that are extremely dangerous if the walkers aren't paying attention.

I imagine it does seem rather odd how golfers and footpath walkers, common land walkers and users too, seem to coexist in the U.K. Guess it’s convention and familiarly as most folks taking a walk across a golf course, for say dog exercise, even horse exercise, will likely follow the same paths, paths that have been there for centuries. And most footpaths are reasonably well signposted.
One aspect that does seem to cause confusion is when a golf course installs a formal surfaced pathway for buggies or golfing foot traffic. There installation often seems to cause confusion to walkers, either ones who’ve walked across the course for years or newbies, and then things can go array.
Mind in what now seems like a zillion years of playing golf in the U.K. I’ve never seen a footpath user hit by a golf ball (cars crossing courses yes) although I believe Clubs have to have insurance for such an possible occurrence.
As the last few years have gone by though and with the ball now travelling much further I have more concern especially where footpaths that were once out of range are now in range and also as vegetation on courses has grown taller and wider more blind spots occur. Another reason to get the chainsaw going!
I wonder how things operate in Scotland where (unlike Eng, Wales and I believe NI) ‘right-to-roam’ is in place.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

Not every club has the luxury of being able to purchase the neighbor’s home as Winged Foot did when they had a similar problem. I believe that the homeowner in the Quaker Ridge case offered to sell their home back to the club early on in the proceeding and QR passed. No knock on QR as the price tag most likely precluded the sale.


There are no shortage of courses that have condo/patio style housing on the perimeter and I wonder if there have been lawsuits regarding same? There is a course in Hartford County, Connecticut where a drop from someone’s gas grill happens at least once a side and if you bought one of the units you were most certainly aware of the danger. The peril here is not in hitting it too far but rather hitting it too much right or left. Desmond Muirhead built his share of these courses as well as the one I referenced.

[Niall C]

Scotland has a different legal system than England although it may be that in England the law is broadly similar. 


At any rate in Scotland, the legal recourse for an adjoining owner is to have the court issue an interdict charging the club (assuming the course is owned or run by a club) to stop balls being hit into the applicants property on the grounds of stopping a Nuisance. For a nuisance to be proved the number of balls landing in the adjoining property must be more than just 1 or 2. Where the balls cause damage, the adjoining owner may also seek damages although that might be a bit more difficult given the need to identify who you are seeking damages against. That said, the Niddrie Castle case probably means the club can't just say "it wasnae me!" and try and blame some unidentified golfer.


However to answer the question in the OP, in Scotland the law of nuisance is well enough known and established that clubs generally look to find an amicable solution with the adjoining owner before it goes to court, so no need for solicitors.


Niall     

[Rob Marshall]

We have a neighbor on my course complaining about the mowers in the morning. The course has been there for 60 years and now it's a problem?

When I worked the Futures tour, we had a 7:10 first tee time off the 10h tee.  At 6:50 the the grounds crew hadn’t touched the green.  We panicked.  Exactly at 7 they showed up, mowed the green and cut the hole before the group reached there tee shots.  Turns out a neighbor across the street had sued to prohibit the crew from working on the green before 7.

That is exactly what we do. We had to move our first tee time from 6:45 to 7:00 AM. Our problem is the 2nd green. The crew sits behind it until it's exactly 7:00 am and then starts cutting. Fortunately we don't have any houses that come in to play as far as balls are concerned.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

There's a lot of golf legal stuff going on here. Take a look:


http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/

[Jeff_Brauer]

We have a neighbor on my course complaining about the mowers in the morning. The course has been there for 60 years and now it's a problem?

When I worked the Futures tour, we had a 7:10 first tee time off the 10h tee.  At 6:50 the the grounds crew hadn’t touched the green.  We panicked.  Exactly at 7 they showed up, mowed the green and cut the hole before the group reached there tee shots.  Turns out a neighbor across the street had sued to prohibit the crew from working on the green before 7.

Reminds me of my summer golf course job way back when.  Job board had me rotary mowing around the parking lot, adjacent to a street.  While mowing, a guy in bath robe was standing over me screaming.  Said it might be okay weekdays at 6+ when we started, but please let him sleep in on weekends, or he would sue.  I told the super and we stopped mowing near houses on weekends, sort of the logical solution without going to court, which probably happens a lot, but never gets reported.