A Golf Course Can Be A Nuisance

[Jim_Coleman]

    I was lucky enough to play Quaker Ridge this week - amazing experience.  Incredible course on such a small footprint.  We were given a very odd instruction, though.  We had to hit a ball provided by the club off the second tee, and were told that under no circumstances were we to retrieve it if we hit it out of bounds.  Turns out the club lost a lawsuit to a neighbor who built a $3+ million home bordering the course 90 years after the course was built.  A N.Y. appellate court ruled that Quaker Ridge constituted a nuisance to the homeowner because so many balls were sliced onto the property. 
   
     http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2014/09/20/quaker-ridge-scarsdale-lawsuit-errant-golf-balls/15990555/

  The club has now put up some pretty ugly trees and, I think, an ugly screen.  I can see this as being a more serious problem for a new course, although it seems pretty wrong to me.  Do architects consider this in their designs these days?

[Tyler Kearns]

Jim,


Yes, architects consider adjacent land uses (present & future) when designing golf courses in an effort to keep balls on the property and avoid future litigation.


In regards to Quaker Ridge, I am surprised the club did not built a new tee for that hole to the NE of the existing tee where the parking lot for the tennis courts currently reside.  Moving the tee closer to the property line usually has the affect of steering golfers into playing away from the out-of-bounds.  Further, if the trees along the property line of large, mature ones, it would also limit golfers ability to hit over them.


TK

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oh yeah, we consider it.  Get any three golf architects together, and there will be a story about someone getting sued for it (luckily, mostly second hand)  Most of us have testified on behalf of another architect on one kind of lawsuit or another, including hit houses.

There are no widely accepted written standards, because the insurers and architects want it that way.  But, there are a few books and articles out there lawyers can find.  We all agree standards are getting wider, but then the argument for an old course has to be that it was in standards when built.  And, you can't expect them to predict the future. In the QR case, I bet the older homes around the course were well back from the back lot line, but in this era of Mc Mansions, they are much closer, and how could Tillie have predicted that?

[Jon Cavalier]

Whatever happened to the doctrine of "coming to the nuisance"? This is like building a house next to a pig farm and then complaining that it always smells like shit.

I can see the homeowners possibly ultimately prevailing against the seller of the land/property (maybe - it's a matter of notice, but it's not like Quaker Ridge is hidden - I'd love to know if the marketing materials they saw or the sales pitch they heard trumpeted the fact that the house was on the course), but unless New York has some weird nuisance laws, I'd guess the club is neither liable for damages or permanently enjoined.

It's also interesting that there was previously a large screen that, by plaintiff's admission, prevented the balls from entering the property (which was knocked down in a storm in 2008), and that all efforts to replace the screen have been thwarted by the township/homeowners association. If that's true, I'd expect the ultimate result to be an order to replace the screen as it was, and a nominal award for the player trespassing.

The irony here is that if Quaker Ridge were to simply throw its hands up and sell to a developer, these people would be the first in line at the courthouse in an effort to enjoin that too.

The law shouldn't be used as a tool to protect people from their own stupidity. Buy a house on a golf course, expect balls in your yard.

*Not legal advice*

[Tom_Doak]

This stuff happens all the time on famous American courses.  A few years ago we had to move a green at Essex County [Mass.] after a long and complicated lawsuit; in that one, the house was in the same place as it had been for 100 years, but a lawyer bought it and then put his kids' play house out near the boundary of the golf course, and started collecting golf balls.  [I don't think he put his kids out there, just the play equipment.]


Part of the solution there was to put a deed restriction on the house accepting the proximity of the [modified] golf course.  That should really be a condition for all houses along golf courses ... in "golf developments" especially ... but there is no way to make all the homeowners along Quaker Ridge put it into their deeds and possibly reduce the value of their homes for eventual re-sale.


I have also mentioned here before that anywhere else in the world I've worked [Australia, New Zealand, the U.K.], lawsuits like this don't happen ... the homeowner goes to court to complain, and the court just tells the golf course to change the hole.  Every club in Melbourne has dealt with boundary issues, some to the ruination of some of their best holes.  Their only other choice was to buy out all the neighbors.

[David_Tepper]

The 3rd hole at Royal Dornoch was changed slightly less than 2 years ago to deal with such an issue.

[Sam Andrews]

Hello all, my first post having been admitted to the hallowed forum recently.


There is some debate at Rye about the proximity of the Camber road to the 1st, 3rd, 10th and the practice ground. Certainly the rough has been extended on the left of the 3rd to encourage drives up the right hand side. I feel that a bunker would have a greater visual effect if we have to change things (the rough at Rye is a swine at the best of times).


Mind you, it is quite possible that any changes will be undone by our sibilant breezes. I have seen a ball driven from the 4th tee sail over the road — there was something of a gentle zephyr blowing at the time — and one club member claims to have hit the highway from all of the first five holes.


Perhaps more pertinent is the state of the player rather than the course. Given Rye members enthusiasm for 'lunch' I do sometimes wonder if those that have third party insurance would find it void under the drinking/driving laws.

[Tom_Doak]

There is some debate at Rye about the proximity of the Camber road to the 1st, 3rd, 10th and the practice ground. Certainly the rough has been extended on the left of the 3rd to encourage drives up the right hand side. I feel that a bunker would have a greater visual effect if we have to change things (the rough at Rye is a swine at the best of times).

Sam:


Believe it or not, I think roads have greater leeway in this system, because there is not a single party [the homeowner] who lines up to sue the club.  You would only be forced to make a change on the basis of an accident, followed by a lawsuit.

[Sam Andrews]

Tom,


That is good news and I am sure that the many lawyers at Rye have been consulted. I do wonder, however, if in future courses will have to demonstrate due diligence in directing the errant shot away from the traffic by re-siting the tee, providing warning signage or more protection in the form of a hedge along the road. Trees at Rye would take a long time but they have recently planted some shrubs on the practice ground to catch a hook. Personally I now wait for a pause in the traffic when hitting from the 10th, not simply for fear of an uncharacteristic slice but also because of the inevitable shout of 'fore' or worse in mid backswing from passing pond life.

[Sam Andrews]

Oh and I forgot to mention that I understand that the reason that the new green and tee were built at the 16th at Woking was in part because of a fear of balls flying through the hedge at the back of the green and into the road. It was also suggested the tee was in danger from wild approaches from the 15th. As a boy when I played there regularly I cannot remember anyone doing either, though I did hit one through an open window into the main bar behind the 14th green and was invited to play back out if I could afford the glazing bill if I failed!

[Jon Wiggett]

Moortown underwent a major redesign due to householders bordering the old 13th complaining about golf balls in their gardens. The galling thing about losing some of the great parts of this Dr. Mac gem was that the houses were built well after the course and two of the house owners even admitted that their houses were worth more because the golf course was there.

Jon

[Ian Andrew]

In Canada, who came first, was for a long time used as a successful defense strategy.
One ruling against one club inner city Toronto club ended that.
That ruling now is used as precedence and all clubs are addressing their boundary issues here.


Many changes have been made in the last dozen years to address this issue.
You have to be able to prove that you've done all you can reasonably do to minimize the risk for an adjacent property.


In many instances the clubs have gone to netting.
Adjacent owners can't oppose netting if that's the route the club chooses.
While not pretty to look at, it does put the problem to an end.




As an aside...
 I always thought the issue of public safety was the one angle that the USGA could have used about going to a shorter ball and fighting threats of a lawsuit from the equipment companies.

[Sean_A]

I am definitely in the minority on this subject.  I don't believe golfers should have the right to continuously bomb balls outside of their property simply because the course was there before the house...and I welcome cout intervention to prevent carelsss activities which endanger others.  Turn this around and see yourself as the neighbour getting bombarded.  A more apt analogy is if kids are constantly kicking/hitting balls over your fence.  Once in a while its not an issue, but at some point a line has to be drawn. Everyone has the right not be hassled by their neighbour(s) regardless of what existed first...and bombing balls off property is at the very least a hassle and quite possibly dangerous and a cause of property damage.  It should absolutely the be the responsibility of golf clubs to be good neighbours. And golfers wonder why they have a bad rep?  


Ian, I would bet some cash that in places a golf club would not get away with ugly nets...and it isn't reasonable to reduce the value of a neighbour's property because a club is too cheap to effect a more permanent change to the situation which does not impinge on a neighbour in the way a tall net would.  Lets face it, golfers have a duty to buck up and take responsibility for their actions, but in a good faith manner which doesn't unduly impinge on neighbours. If that means altering a golf course...so be it.  Golf is small beer.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I am definitely in the minority on this subject.  I don't believe golfers should have the right to continuously bomb balls outside of their property simply because the course was there before the house...and I welcome court intervention to prevent carelsss activities which endanger others.

Sean:


None of us wants to see anyone get hurt.


By the same token, I've seen a couple of examples of out-and-out extortion by "homeowners" in my time as a designer.


Are the risks really increasing, or are people just more quick to sue to get their way?  Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

[Nigel Islam]

Jim,
     Is Quaker Ridge using the newly constructed tee yet?

[Jon Cavalier]

Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

Especially when, by virtue of the property being on a golf course and the consequent preservation of open space, that same homeowner sees the benefit of increased property values.

The trespass is another story. As is a particularly dangerous situation that is either abnormal or unforeseeable. But in the typical situation, people shouldn't/wouldn't buy a house next to a river and then complain when it floods.

[Nigel Islam]

Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

Especially when, by virtue of the property being on a golf course and the consequent preservation of open space, that same homeowner sees the benefit of increased property values.

The trespass is another story. As is a particularly dangerous situation that is either abnormal or unforeseeable. But in the typical situation, people shouldn't/wouldn't buy a house next to a river and then complain when it floods.

Jon,
    The way I understood the story is the plaintiff claimed to have no knowledge the course existed. Difficult to believe, but apparently not as difficult to prove.

[Jon Cavalier]

Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

Especially when, by virtue of the property being on a golf course and the consequent preservation of open space, that same homeowner sees the benefit of increased property values.

The trespass is another story. As is a particularly dangerous situation that is either abnormal or unforeseeable. But in the typical situation, people shouldn't/wouldn't buy a house next to a river and then complain when it floods.

Jon,
    The way I understood the story is the plaintiff claimed to have no knowledge the course existed. Difficult to believe, but apparently not as difficult to prove.

According to the actual complaint in the case, the plaintiff pleads that there was a large net there previously.



He does not appear to allege lack of knowledge. Which I think must mean that the lot was heavily marketed as bordering the golf course.

[Sean_A]

I am definitely in the minority on this subject.  I don't believe golfers should have the right to continuously bomb balls outside of their property simply because the course was there before the house...and I welcome court intervention to prevent carelsss activities which endanger others.

Sean:


None of us wants to see anyone get hurt.


By the same token, I've seen a couple of examples of out-and-out extortion by "homeowners" in my time as a designer.


Are the risks really increasing, or are people just more quick to sue to get their way?  Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

Tom


No, I believe the onus should be on the golf club to control its activities so as to not impinge on neighbours. Knowing a golf club is next door prior to purchasing a house shouldn't relinquish the expectation of safety and hassle free existence.  I wonder what the club would think if the neighbour started hitting balls toward golfers on the course?  The shoe on the other foot doesn't sound too great.  I think in the long term golf clubs will lose this battle more and more.  Many golf courses in the UK are changed for these sorts of reasons or drivers etc are banned on some holes.  Its a shame, but a consequence of more development and golfers failing to exercise restraint when dangerous situations arise. 

The odd ball flyng over the property line isn't an issue (so long as there is no damage to people or property), but once a pattern arises, clubs are in jeapordy of being taken to task and should be proactive.  I think what has happened in the past is many neighbours have been lenient with clubs (and clubs have overly depended on this good will) just as they would be in general..in an effort to be good and reasonable neighbours.  These days though, more and more people won't put up with this kind of thing.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

........Its a shame, but a consequence of more development and golfers failing to exercise restraint when dangerous situations arise......

and of the R&A/USGA in failing to grasp the issue of restraint on equipment progress. There are courses which have had to make adjustments that would not have been necessary in prior times as players, even top players, wouldn't be hitting it (offline) so far with previous generation equipment.


atb

[Pat Burke]

Couldn't the club just buy helmets for the idiots that built a house next to an existing fairway?


I can absolutely understand if a course came in AFTER something was built.
How can there be no assumption of risk for this?


Funny who people's stupid decisions have to be fixed by inconveniencing others

[Chris DeNigris]

 Don't you think that buying a home next to a golf course assumes some liability?

It should assume ALL the liability.  Do your due diligence and take responsibility for your decision, whether your expectations are met or not.  I made a questionable decision and bought in the middle of a fairway but on the left side- thinking that all I had to do was avoid the hacker slicers.  I didn't realize how many hookers there were at my club (or possibly southpaws).   It just wasn't their fault that I decided to live there. While I appreciated the occasional note of apology left next to a broken window, along with the more occasional offer to pay- I never felt right in taking them up on the offer.

The guy at QR and thousands like him surrounding some of our favorite courses simply think they're more important than everyone else and don't care how much pain they cause as a result of their selfish behavior. Sad.

[Jeff_Brauer]

........Its a shame, but a consequence of more development and golfers failing to exercise restraint when dangerous situations arise......

and of the R&A/USGA in failing to grasp the issue of restraint on equipment progress. There are courses which have had to make adjustments that would not have been necessary in prior times as players, even top players, wouldn't be hitting it (offline) so far with previous generation equipment.


atb

I don't think this is true, really.  Much of new tech is supposed to allow average players to hit it straighter than old clubs on off center hits.  As to shots flying further, it really only happens to any large degree with near pro level players, who rarely hitt off line.

Granted, there are a small percentage of golfers who are long (and supposedly longer now) and wild, but we would have to see where this house was along the fairway to assume that.

Funny case, really, in that it was the homeowners tree that fell, causing others to fall, and yet its not his fault, and act of God, or anything other than the golf courses responsibility.  When you rely on trees, this can happen.  They could have split the cost of nets, but the homeowner would have hated that, too.

One of the funniest lawsuits addressing the rights of who came first was in Chicago, where Oprah's near north side neighborhood had gentrified and the condo owners sued a 100 year old chocolate factory for noxious odors.  I find warm chocolate to smell quite nice, but might get tired of it. I think the factory stayed, but not sure if it is still in biz.

Anyone can allege anything.  Here in  Texas, I got sued by a sod supplier for rejecting obviously dead sod, and allowing the contractor to use another supplier.  In the interrogatory phase, they asked ten questions, all false accusations (other than asking how much insurance I had) and I thought I was done.  The judge gave them a month to think up new accusations.  Courts really do favor hearing the case all the way through in most cases, as its the complainers right to a day in court.  Whether we agree or not, it can be frustrating.

[Neil Regan]

]
...
According to the actual complaint in the case, the plaintiff pleads that there was a large net there previously.





...

Jon,
  If the plaintiff pleads that there was a large net there previously,
      your quote does not indicate that.


 

[Jim_Coleman]

Nigel:  Is Quaker Ridge using a new tee on 2?  This was my first time there, so I can't say for sure; but I don't think so.  They stuck tee markers 275 yards from the green, and we played from there.  Mike Davis would have been proud.  It was an outing though, so I don't know what the members do.