[Jeff_Brauer]

Like most of you, I am not a lawyer but followed that case a bit.

The legal "standard" most gca's are taught to follow is the maddeningly vague guide to design so the "preponderance" of golf balls in normal play do not cause safety problems or conflicts with adjacent holes and property given the totality of distance separation, trees, and other mitigating factors, like trees, the uphill slope at the property line, uphill, downhill, crosswinds, aiming points, tee directing golfers to the fw, etc.  Every case really is unique and a deep dive might even consider course type (i.e., presuming more rounds by wilder high handicappers at a public course, and fewer rounds by generally lower handicaps at private clubs).

With all I have studied these things, I don't know what preponderance means, and each case is unique, but the legal system will probably "up" that definition slowly over time by court decisions like the original ruling in this case. (Which was novel, by the way, claiming golf balls and not the humans who hit them were "trespassing" on their property).


At some point, maybe post WWII, I think 90% of shots being contained was probably generally accepted as "okay", but moving forward, I think 95-99 % will be more generally accepted for new projects.  I hope it never goes to 99.99% via some precedence in a court case because that is most likely unattainable, and there are probably 12,000 US courses that don't even get close right now.


If the housing corridor contains 90%+ of shots, with about half going wild each way, then the slice side could expect to see 1500 balls in 30,000 rounds.  Of course, that will be scattered over 200+ yards and if each house lot is 50 feet, without mitigation, each house lot would statistically still have a ball land on the property about 115 times annually. (Although, a few lots about 160-180 off the tee would only really get that.) 

I also understand that while we might measure in % of shots, the homeowner's calculus is more likely to be done on the measure of "balls per day/week/month/quarter/season/decade.  1 ball per X = 183/26/6/2/1 or 0.1 annually for those time periods in a 6 month season.  I suspect 1-2 per month would be considered reasonable by most juries and golf course homeowners, but what if that one severely injured their child?  Their opinion of reasonable could change quickly. 


I have to go back and read it, but either initially or after some remediation this house was getting hit about 15 times per year or about 2.5 per month in a 6 month season.  It does appear there were some negotiations on providing reasonably low cost "minor mitigation" (i.e., trees, moving tee back, moving fw away from his house, adding hazards to encourage play further away) but the course owner stubbornly, and IMHO unwisely, stuck to his position that it was not his problem.  A bit of cooperation will typically serve golf courses much better.



Also of interest is that much of this comes as a result of self-inflicted changes (i.e., the homeowner clearing his own trees) that neither the architect nor the club could reasonably expect. And, in this day and age, pointing that out will seem like "victim shaming" to many, including those who might serve on some future jury.


I still recall a case in Chicago where new owners of upscale yuppie condos sued to have a 100 year old chocolate factory shut down due to its "noxious odors".  They lost, but there is little doubt in my mind that the legal theory of being the first one there reducing liability is slowly fading.  There are other cases of suing 150 year old railroads for the noise they cause now that houses are built up against the tracks, and I think some of those have been successful.


It is probably not as big an issue to golf as water and pesticides, but obviously, it is a big issue that may impact any future golf and housing development. 


   

[Niall C]

Also of interest is that much of this comes as a result of self-inflicted changes (i.e., the homeowner clearing his own trees) that neither the architect nor the club could reasonably expect. And, in this day and age, pointing that out will seem like "victim shaming" to many, including those who might serve on some future jury.

Jeff


I'm not sure that pointing that out would be shaming but instead perhaps showing the clubs arrogance in assuming that their neighbour won't or shouldn't be allowed to cut down their own trees rather than the club taking measures to ensure that balls wouldn't go into the neighbours property.


Niall

[Ken Moum]

To those who would suggest that this is somehow only a bad golfer problem, I offer:


https://twitter.com/Skratch/status/1609621390394822656?s=20&t=ecucSfj1Ul03XojzOHlaYA
[/size]
[/size]And, several years ago, when I was writing for GCSAA I looked into this and there's almost nowhere in the US where a golfer is liable for off-course damage caused by an errant shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also of interest is that much of this comes as a result of self-inflicted changes (i.e., the homeowner clearing his own trees) that neither the architect nor the club could reasonably expect. And, in this day and age, pointing that out will seem like "victim shaming" to many, including those who might serve on some future jury.

Jeff


I'm not sure that pointing that out would be shaming but instead perhaps showing the clubs arrogance in assuming that their neighbour won't or shouldn't be allowed to cut down their own trees rather than the club taking measures to ensure that balls wouldn't go into the neighbours property.


Niall

Niall,


To any reasonable degree, property owners have the right to do as they please, although zoning laws, (i.e., can't put up a 100 foot spite fence that affects neighbors) or covenants might affect this in some cases.  Whether or not they do in this case I don't know, but I suspect any of us who play golf would have considered the consequences of taking down a natural barrier the architect would naturally assume would stay.  If trees are part of the mitigation of living near a course, who should pay to put them back up on a neighbor's property? 


Those are legal questions I don't know and again, all cases have unique circumstances.  (both lawyers and golf clubs prefer it that way, I think.  Lawyers would get less fees if every case could be settled by some pre-decided standard, and clubs who have existing designs balk at being held to some new standard anyone may propose.)


A bigger question may be what should architects "reasonably anticipate?"  How would a 50's architect know how far balls would go today? (other than a general idea that even by then, golf balls were getting longer)  Enough courses have switched from private to public, and play has generally increased, and all three factors might cause problems that were not present when the design was completed.  I could see a lawyer trying to imply that this 1950's gca "should have anticipated" any of those.  Even now, there is a real scarcity of data on how golf balls fly, probably not enough in any case to prove most situations could have been anticipated.


My victim shaming comment was really more in response to having been on juries where a few jurors always say "Let's give the money to the little guy and sometimes, let's stick it to the rich guys."  Many civil cases are decided by emotion and perspective over what I might consider the actual facts of the case.

[Niall C]

Jeff


Why should the responsibility for the homeowner not being hit by golf balls coming from the neighbouring golf course be theirs and not the golf club's ?


Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Every case is different, but I can envision some, including buying a treed lot and taking down the trees that might protect you.


Having worked for developers, I know I would get shot down if I proposed placing any housing property line far enough away to avoid all golf shots (which would probably be 205 feet from the centerline of the fw, either to anticipate some future version of golf, or to account for the slim possibility that the owner might either build within whatever the back lot line was and/or removing trees.  I mean, who does that?

[Niall C]

Jeff


I accept that every case is different in terms of the particulars but surely the principle is the same, that being the owner of the property is allowed peaceful enjoyment of it. In this instance peaceful enjoyment would mean not being hit by stray balls from the neighbouring property.


Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,


I just don't think you are correct in that.  I mean, generally yes, and in a perfect world, there would be zero golf balls leaving any golf course.  And truthfully as a practical matter, if a homesite is far enough away from the course to avoid all ball strikes, it is probably too far away to offer that coveted golf course view, so there is a tradeoff.


However, courts have continuously held that stray shots are part of golf and of living next to a golf course, and a risk the homeowner must accept, up to a point.  If there is something in the design or operations that could be construed to be a reasonably foreseeable condition that contributes to "excessive" and repeated property impacts, then either or both parties should find some reasonable mitigation.


My opinion is that the definition of a "reasonable" number of conflicts/impacts will gradually become more strict, via court cases like this, and probably has been becoming more of a responsibility of the course over the last few decades.  Obviously, the golf industry tends to side with a more liberal definition because, as I mentioned, there are probably 12,000 out of 14,000 that would probably not meet any newly proposed "safety standard."  I doubt anyone, including adjacent homeowners on those courses, would want those courses closed down.  So yes, every golf course lot in America presents a unique set of circumstances and usually, course and homeowners work together to come up with some kind of mitigation to reduce the possibility of conflict, without lawsuits.  And when you think about it, the number of these types of lawsuits is really pretty rare.

[V_Halyard]

I would wager that a house placed near a 275 yard carry from the back tee on the right side of the course might yield the highest number of premium balls.
A solidly struck higher the handicap ball will likely be running ending up a little farther from your house in your yard but easily retrieved.
For the low handicaps, assume about 275 yard carry so plant a few shrubs to slow down the big hitters as their errant balls are hopefully a tad less off line, and entering decelerating and shallowing descent, to be deflected by your well placed shrubbery.
House Inside of 250, get a net.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Val,


I'd take that bet!  By far the most misses by the widest angle are from 160-190 off the tee on the right.  Of course, it's all based on limited data, but the few data sets over 20-40 years appear consistent to me.  That said, if you look at Broadie's chart for A players, there are two shots at the border of the graph that are at least 100 yards off line at about 275, further off line than any D player shot.  Apparently, if a really strong player really misses on his swing, the miss can be spectacular!


You are correct that an upslope, hedge, or fence can make a difference.  The Broadie chart shows the finished landing place, but for D players, roll is at least 10% of total distance, and a small barrier high enough to catch the first bounce allows (reasonably and only IMHO) that property line to be pulled in a little to the expected landing spot, not the final rollout.

[Chris_Blakely]

The baseball analogy makes no sense to me. If foul territory were someone else’s property, I think baseball would be a very different game! If errant shots are fundamental to the game, it seems you should position the field of play such that errant shots stay on your property.

Well I 100% disagree about the baseball analogy not making sense.  I live directly behind home plate of a high school baseball field and the number of foul balls I get in my yard is a lot.  The high school existed prior to the subdivision and I maintain several tall trees to keep them (for the most part) from making it to my house.

[David Kelly]

The baseball analogy makes no sense to me. If foul territory were someone else’s property, I think baseball would be a very different game! If errant shots are fundamental to the game, it seems you should position the field of play such that errant shots stay on your property.

Well I 100% disagree about the baseball analogy not making sense.  I live directly behind home plate of a high school baseball field and the number of foul balls I get in my yard is a lot.  The high school existed prior to the subdivision and I maintain several tall trees to keep them (for the most part) from making it to my house.

I agree.  I've probably hit more houses with hit baseballs and softballs than with golf balls and I've played a lot of golf.

[mike_beene]

Jeff: in the case I represented the DAC in years ago the homeowners alleged (unsuccessfully) that the balls represented a trespass.
While these cases have been around for years, there seem to be more of them. And verdicts in all types of cases have gone up for whatever reason (athletes salaries, the lottery, class warfare are a few factors some accept).

[Niall C]

Niall,


I just don't think you are correct in that.  I mean, generally yes, and in a perfect world, there would be zero golf balls leaving any golf course.  And truthfully as a practical matter, if a homesite is far enough away from the course to avoid all ball strikes, it is probably too far away to offer that coveted golf course view, so there is a tradeoff.


However, courts have continuously held that stray shots are part of golf and of living next to a golf course, and a risk the homeowner must accept, up to a point.  If there is something in the design or operations that could be construed to be a reasonably foreseeable condition that contributes to "excessive" and repeated property impacts, then either or both parties should find some reasonable mitigation.


My opinion is that the definition of a "reasonable" number of conflicts/impacts will gradually become more strict, via court cases like this, and probably has been becoming more of a responsibility of the course over the last few decades.  Obviously, the golf industry tends to side with a more liberal definition because, as I mentioned, there are probably 12,000 out of 14,000 that would probably not meet any newly proposed "safety standard."  I doubt anyone, including adjacent homeowners on those courses, would want those courses closed down.  So yes, every golf course lot in America presents a unique set of circumstances and usually, course and homeowners work together to come up with some kind of mitigation to reduce the possibility of conflict, without lawsuits.  And when you think about it, the number of these types of lawsuits is really pretty rare.

Jeff


Let me preface what I'm about to say by acknowledging that the legal systems in the US and in Scotland are different. Nonetheless there appears to be some parallels. From what I've read on this thread the term for the "offence" in the US is trespass whereas in Scotland it is known as Nuisance.


In Scotland there doesn't necessarily need to be any physical damage caused, just that the "offence" occurs enough to cause nuisance. In that instance the property owner can go to court to get an interdict (court order) against the club forcing them to close or redesign the hole causing the problems. As far as I know there is no standard for how often balls have to land in the property for the property owner to obtain the interdict but from what I gather the courts do tend to very much side with the home owner. Note, the action is to prevent something happening rather than action to obtain damages.


Unsurprisingly clubs are alive to the legal position and will seek to come up with a solution that avoids having to go to court where the nuclear option of closing the golf hole might be imposed on them. I've been a member at 4 different clubs in Scotland and 3 of them have had to alter and redesign holes to deal with this issue. Even the great and the good have been affected such as Royal Dornoch (3rd) and Prestwick (no drivers off the 1st tee). Of course there are situations like TOC where the owners of the Old Course Hotel are unlikely to seek a court order to stop play on one of golfs most iconic holes but there is no doubt they could if they wished.


So like the US it is the norm for the club and the property owners to try and sort things out, however over here the law is on the side of the neighbouring property owners and therefore the impetus is on the clubs to come up with the solution.


Niall   

[Kalen Braley]

The baseball analogy makes no sense to me. If foul territory were someone else’s property, I think baseball would be a very different game! If errant shots are fundamental to the game, it seems you should position the field of play such that errant shots stay on your property.

Well I 100% disagree about the baseball analogy not making sense.  I live directly behind home plate of a high school baseball field and the number of foul balls I get in my yard is a lot.  The high school existed prior to the subdivision and I maintain several tall trees to keep them (for the most part) from making it to my house.

I agree.  I've probably hit more houses with hit baseballs and softballs than with golf balls and I've played a lot of golf.

David,

I would also agree. 

I played a lot of softball in my younger years and the onus was almost always on the field owners to make balls less of a hazard, and not just the foul ones.

One field I played at a lot had a short porch down the left field line with houses directly behind it. Even after putting up a 30 foot fence, some just couldn't resist it, so they eventually made a local rule that any home runs over that section of the fence was an out.  Pretty much fixed the problem instantly.

P.S. But overall, at least softball/baseball players have the excuse of the ball is moving while you're trying to hit it, what excuse do golfers have! 

[Steve Wilson]

Not sure this is on topic, but the first time I played Royal Dornoch in 1997 I was offered golfer's insurance which came to 1 pound 50.  I took it because I knew the course was on common ground and didn't want to incur any liability for any damage I might inadvertently cause.


I must admit that my views on this issue have evolved through the years.  Originally I thought the burden had to be on the owner of the house if they bought it knowing the golf course was there.


I suspect that with equipment changes more balls are leaving the golf course than ever before. 


I like the notion of trying to be a good neighbor, because golf  will increasingly become the target of those who seek to cloak envy with moralistic and environmental pretensions.


Without knowing the particulars of this case, I would like to think that in most cases golf courses and homeowners should be able to work together to minimize these hazards.  Since this one went to court, it's obvious such a reasonable compromise was not achieved.  Being there first should count for something, but it ought not to function as indulgence that excuses all.     


Under any circumstances, 5 million dollars is probably excessive.  I suspect there will be a settlement based on the easement that is for much less.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()