[Steve_ Shaffer]

Court overturns $5 million verdict against country club for errant golf balls hitting house
Indian Pond CC: https://www.indianpondcountryclub.com/club/scripts/custom/custom.asp

http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/?p=7806

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/5-million-verdict-country-club-house-2022
Quaker Ridge : http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/?p=7181

[BCrosby]

The right result. The court notes:


“Errant golf balls are to golf what foul balls and errors are to baseball. They are a natural part of the game,” Kafker wrote. “They demonstrate the difficulty and challenge of the sport even for the very best players. Despite practice, instruction, technological improvements, and even good golf course design and operation—disputed in the instant case—golf shots go awry, as a matter of course.”

Spot on.


[size=78%]Bob[/size]

[Steve Abt]

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.

[Sean_A]

The right result. The court notes:


“Errant golf balls are to golf what foul balls and errors are to baseball. They are a natural part of the game,” Kafker wrote. “They demonstrate the difficulty and challenge of the sport even for the very best players. Despite practice, instruction, technological improvements, and even good golf course design and operation—disputed in the instant case—golf shots go awry, as a matter of course.”

Spot on.


[size=78%]Bob[/size]

The judgement is correct because of the easement...assuming its conditions are met. The analogy is way off the mark...not even in the ballpark 😎.

Happy New Year

[Rob Marshall]

If they bought the house before the golf course or hole was located there  I get it. If you buy a house on a golf course unless you are a complete idiot you know that you are potentially in for. I looked at condo's on a golf course in Florida and always looked at the hole in relation to the condo location.

[Sean_A]

If they bought the house before the golf course or hole was located there  I get it. If you buy a house on a golf course unless you are a complete idiot you know that you are potentially in for. I looked at condo's on a golf course in Florida and always looked at the hole in relation to the condo location.

While I agree one may be an idiot to buy a house adjacent to a golf course, it doesn't follow that one gives up their right to safety if they do so. Regardless of this basic disagreement, times have changed. Buying a house next to a course wasn't necessarily the issue it can be today compared to 100, 50 or even 15 years ago. My goodness, I see errant shots these days I never heard of in 1978.

Happy New Year

[Connor Lewis]

Buyer assumes the risk. If you live down the fairway of any golf course and you don’t assume your house will be struck by a golf ball- then I have an island to sell you.

[Sean_A]

Buyer assumes the risk. If you live down the fairway of any golf course and you don’t assume your house will be struck by a golf ball- then I have an island to sell you.

It isn't a question of a house being hit. Shit happens. The question is how often is a garden bombed. I don't know what the tolerance level is. Is 10 times a year acceptable? How about 100? Your attitude seems to suggest no limits with little concern for safety of neighbours. That is not a look for golf which I can get behind. I want golfers to be viewed as good neighbours and a positive for communities.

Happy New Year

[Thomas Dai]

I want golfers to be viewed as good neighbours and a positive for communities.

Well said. There are enough anti-golf folks and golf haters already, no need to create more.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

If you actually click on the second link, you'll see that while the verdict was vacated, because the original hearing did not make the "easement" plain.  But the easement only allows the golf course to "operate in a reasonable matter", and it will be up to a jury on retrial to determine whether the number of golf balls in this back yard is reasonable for its operation.

[Kyle Harris]

The last thing golf needs is the optics of affecting an even bigger footprint than it already does.


You hit the ball. Take responsibility for the damage you caused. That seems to be simple manners. If you don’t think you can play the golf course without risking damage to person or property go play somewhere else.

[archie_struthers]

 




Now that makes me happy!

[SL_Solow]

Tom has it absolutely right.  The easement is limited and a jury will determine whether the golf course operated in a manner consistent with the language of the grant.  This is a further illustration of the impact of unrestricted equipment changes.  Increased distances also result in increases in the length and direction of off line shots.  Accordingly, designs that were relatively "safe" have become increasingly dangerous.

[Sean_A]

If you actually click on the second link, you'll see that while the verdict was vacated, because the original hearing did not make the "easement" plain.  But the easement only allows the golf course to "operate in a reasonable matter", and it will be up to a jury on retrial to determine whether the number of golf balls in this back yard is reasonable for its operation.

I did read it, hence my comments about 10 or 100 balls in the garden being the standard. Unfortunately, the easement isn't spelled out. Regardless, times are changing folks. Golfers can either get ahead of the problem or bury their heads in the sands of useless cliches justifying unsatisfactory situations.

Happy New Year

[Niall C]

I think Kyle summed up the matter well. We need to collectively and individually take responsibility and be the best neighbours we can be.


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

So if i buy a house in a lousy neighborhood and my car and garage gets broken into time and time again, and peeps are doing drugs in the alley out back, its not on me?  The due diligence component of buying a house is just bollocks?

[Sean_A]

So if i buy a house in a lousy neighborhood and my car and garage gets broken into time and time again, and peeps are doing drugs in the alley out back, its not on me?  The due diligence component of buying a house is just bollocks?

Very different question due decades long demographic changes, racist housing and loan policies and affordability. But, assuming one can afford to avoid dodgy areas, yes, it makes sense to take a view before buying. However, I still believe residents in dodgy areas have a right to expect safety.

Happy New Year

[Kalen Braley]

So if i buy a house in a lousy neighborhood and my car and garage gets broken into time and time again, and peeps are doing drugs in the alley out back, its not on me?  The due diligence component of buying a house is just bollocks?

Very different question due decades long demographic changes, racist housing and loan policies and affordability. But, assuming one can afford to avoid dodgy areas, yes, it makes sense to take a view before buying. However, I still believe residents in dodgy areas have a right to expect safety.

Happy New Year

I guess the point I was trying to get at, is sometimes you can't always see the bad stuff before you buy...but a golf course, that seems pretty tough to miss.

[Sean_A]

So if i buy a house in a lousy neighborhood and my car and garage gets broken into time and time again, and peeps are doing drugs in the alley out back, its not on me?  The due diligence component of buying a house is just bollocks?

Very different question due decades long demographic changes, racist housing and loan policies and affordability. But, assuming one can afford to avoid dodgy areas, yes, it makes sense to take a view before buying. However, I still believe residents in dodgy areas have a right to expect safety.

Happy New Year

I guess the point I was trying to get at, is sometimes you can't always see the bad stuff before you buy...but a golf course, that seems pretty tough to miss.

As pointed out a few times, sometimes it is only in recent years that issues have come up because of the long ball. But again, it is my belief that I have a right to safety from my neighbours' activities. I can understand the odd ball landing in a garden if the golfer fesses up. But when does it become unacceptable? I don't know the answer.

Happy New Year

[SL_Solow]

Hence the use of the word "reasonable".

[Kalen Braley]

Hence the use of the word "reasonable".

Agreed Shelly as in is it "reasonable" to expect a bunch of double digit hacks to know where on gods green's earth their ball is gonna go? 

[Sean_A]

Hence the use of the word "reasonable".

Agreed Shelly as in is it "reasonable" to expect a bunch of double digit hacks to know where on gods green's earth their ball is gonna go? 

In which case, maybe a more conservative approach is warranted. Golfers can choose to play a shot as if it was their house which could be hit. Alas, some golfers seem to feel they have a right to risk the safety of neighbours so they can win a $5 bet.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Hence the use of the word "reasonable".

Agreed Shelly as in is it "reasonable" to expect a bunch of double digit hacks to know where on gods green's earth their ball is gonna go? 

At what point does lack of skill become negligent behavior? Especially if the double digit hack is aware of the possibility of the damaging outcome? There is surely more a legal obligation to not behave in a manner that could cause harm than there is to hit Driver from the tee.


If a golfer can be expected to take due diligence in not playing in a manner that is dangerous to people ON the golf course why not OFF, as well?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I would say hitting a poor golf shot is never negligence. I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of law to that effect. If you’re suggesting that very bad golfers shouldn’t be allowed to play, good luck with that. And if it’s negligence for a very bad golfer to play, the club would be liable for letting him play.

[Kyle Harris]

   I would say hitting a poor golf shot is never negligence. I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of law to that effect. If you’re suggesting that very bad golfers shouldn’t be allowed to play, good luck with that. And if it’s negligence for a very bad golfer to play, the club would be liable for letting him play.

Laws allow all sorts of things that may or may not be “right.”


If the person causing the damage weren’t playing golf that day, the harm wouldn’t have been done. Take personal responsibility and be a good neighbor.


https://youtu.be/mu_cYrDFU18


Featuring the late, great Dennis Farina.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()