Fore! Who's at fault if someone gets hit?

[SPDB]

My ears were burning . . . I could have sworn that Sean was around here somewhere with an enlightening and powerful indictment of one of us, for sure.  
 

David - Coming from you, that's rich. I'm only curious why these posts (many from non-lawyers) hasn't elicited the normal vitriol. Or could it be that you'd rather shoot the messenger.

[DMoriarty]

David - Coming from you, that's rich. I'm only curious why these posts (many from non-lawyers) hasn't elicited the normal vitriol. Or could it be that you'd rather shoot the messenger.

Sean-

My post was in response to yours of yesterday, which you saw fit to delete.

I'll never get used to the 'here today, gone tomorrow' nature of the delete function.   One of the worst features of this board, if you ask me.   If we thought before we typed it would be completely unnecessary.  But then so would my responses to you.

These posts havent elicited "the normal vitriol" because they arent deserving of such.  For example, no one who might be mistaken for an authority has repeatedly passed false and/or misleading information.  

My only comment would be to recommend the excellent summary referenced by Steve Shaffer (link provided above), with a warning against taking it as gospel, as it is over a decade old.  

Perhaps you should do us all a big favor by updating the article?  Don't law students still receive free computer time?

Good Luck to you.

Your Personal "Ombudsman,"

DM.

[Bob_Huntley]

This thread and another, concerning law suits and class actions, got me to thinking of the rather wondrous way that our society has in transferring funds from one person to another, quite legally

In Great Britain, the trolling for law-suits or the persistent incitement to vexatious litigation, goes under the quaint name of barratry, and is illegal. Here in the United States it is considered part and parcel of a growth industry.

I would like to hear from counsel, whether they agree that contingency fees are the cause of so much litigation. Is Schwarzeneger onto something in demanding that the State should share in punitive damage awards?

[Adam_F_Collins]

We were just informed by our club in a newsletter, that there will be signs put in place by the three tees where going 'over the fence' is a possibility. These signs will inform golfers that any damage outside the course which is caused by the golfer's errant shot is the responsibility of the golfer.

How much effect would such signs have in a legal battle?

[SPDB]

Adam:

In my opinion, which should not be taken as advice of counsel, and should not be construed as a legal opinion,¹ the sign would, I imagine, do little to change the liability of the club to the surrounding landowners. A warning which doesn't mitigate the risk, or alter the dangerous condition to the surrounding property owners, either created or maintained by the club, is really no warning at all, at least from the surrounding homeowner's perspective, no?

But then again, if I remember correctly, you are from Canada, right? I know very little about this sort of thing from an American standpoint (contrary to David Moriarty, who believes I know nothing), and I know far less about it in the context of Canadian law (approaching David Moriarty's estimation) - but rest assured, however the Canadian courts view this sort of thing, it is bound to be eminently more sensible than how it is viewed by their American counterparts.  

____________________________________________________
^1.disclaimer added for the benefit of, and protection against, David Moriarty, Esq.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Without actually seeing the holes in question and depending on what type of damage is done- property or injury- a valid legal opinion can not be given by yours truly.
If the problem is of continuing nature to adjacent land owners, I suggest that refer to the Essex  Club situation that Brad Klein has written about. That type of problem is a "nuisance " situation.
If the problem involves damage to passing cars, then the individual golfer should be responsible.
If the problem involves personal injury to a pedestrian or another golfer, then you can bet your last dollar that any attorney representing the injured party will sue any one responsible- including your club. A posted sign does not limit liability to third persons. If your club knows of a dangerous condition on their property, then the club should take remedial action- higher or better screening or whatever.

Steve

[Adam_F_Collins]

The club has installed 50' fences on two of the three holes in question and 75' on the third.

They are presently 'counting balls' which go over the two 50's and considering going to 75' there as well.

The whole thing may be just to avoid liability while they try to complete the necessary preliminaries around perhaps moving to a new piece of property. It's all on the table at this point.

I thank you all for your thoughtful input.

[Eamon Lynch]

There was an interesting example of this in Ireland a couple of years ago. A sailor was sitting on a bench by Greenore Golf Club in County Louth (a course located right on a port) and was hit by a ball. His injury was not insignificant. He sued the golfer, but not the club, and was awarded Euro 250,000. Not sure if Irish law exempts the club from liability but not the golfer, but I did think it curious that the sailor pursued an individual rather than the entity.