Sliced a ball into an expensive window. Did I do the right thing?

[Lihu]

Opportunity cost, my friend.  What you gained by not having to fix the window all of the time you lost by not being able to golf with me every week.

Why did that window cause you to move so far away??  That'd be like somebody getting ready to buy a house in Brooklyn, but then realizing it had roaches, so they choose one in Philadelphia instead.

I was living up here anyway, and really wanted to stay in escrow. That is a fantastic area for golfing, but at the time I was into snow boarding and rock climbing, anyway.

My wife and two moms (mother and mother in law, plus a few hints from the dads) decided to help us jump ship at the first sign of trouble. They, of course, really like the area I am currently residing.

[Pretzel]

Sorry, I don't care what "some article" says. You break it, you buy it.  Comparing it to dirty water splashing onto a sidewalk is almost unfathomable...

It was a bad example, but it's not just an article. That's what COURTS have decided, not some editor. It's still not nice to not even leave a note, but you are not legally obligated to pay for the damage according to court rulings.

[David in FL]

It was a bad example, but it's not just an article. That's what COURTS have decided, not some editor. It's still not nice to not even leave a note, but you are not legally obligated to pay for the damage according to court rulings.

Please don't let "the courts" dictate or limit your own moral standard. You're better than that.

[Golfingdad]

By choosing that house, the homeowner has accepted the risk that an errant ball will come through his window.  He also accepts the risk that the golfer will run away and he will have to replace the window on his own dime. But, I think that it is incorrect to say that he is somehow "responsible".

That's fair. I will stipulate. :)

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretzel

It was a bad example, but it's not just an article.

That's what COURTS have decided, not some editor. It's still not nice to not even leave a note, but you are not legally obligated to pay for the damage according to court rulings.

Please don't let "the courts" dictate or limit your own moral standard. You're better than that.

100% agree with this.

"What is legal is not always right, what is right, is not always legal"

[dkolo]

Placing liability for an average golfer hitting a reasonable shot that just goes awry on that golfer strikes me as bad policy. It disincentivizes the golf course from taking precautions to prevent damage, like putting up netting or planting trees. I have no idea what case law says about this, but my intuition would be that the golf course's insurance or the golf course itself, ought to indemnify golfers for any damages they cause in the course of reasonable golf play.

Now, this calculus would change in my mind if we're talking about golfers taking crazy risks, cutting corners they're asked not to cut, or generally screwing around.

But you want to place liability where it has some public policy benefit. Asking a golfer not to hit a randomly bad shot isn't behavior we (legally) want to encourage. Encouraging golf courses to design around dangers for neighbors or take measures to mitigate damage is behavior we want to encourage.

[DoubleEagle]

Did the same thing.  No one was home.  When I finished the round, told the guy at the pro shop, left him my name and number.  Never heard from anyone, but at least I made the effort.  My conscience is free and clear.  Do the right thing then you do not have to think about it any more...

[dsc123]

I think the "right thing" definitely includes an apology to the homeowner.  I'm less sure that it includes paying for the window.

[Shindig]

If I drive my car into my neighbor's mailbox, should I refuse to pay for the damage simply because he chose to live on a street? But, none of this has anything to do with the law.  It has everything to do with accepting personal responsibility for your actions and transgressions.  I was taught to do so by my parents.  I teach my daughter the same.  It's simply part of who we are.

Did your parents teach you that you can make excuses for your lack of responsibility? It sounds like you're doing that: excusing the homeowner from every bit of his [i]legal and moral[/i] culpability. "Oh, the homeowner didn't know there was a golf course there, he should be able to treat his house the same as he would in the middle of nowhere." Maybe those weren't your exact words, but we all got the message. I worry your daughter, raised to your so-called standards, might preside over the next Enron or housing crisis. [quote name="krupa" url="/t/76349/sliced-a-ball-into-an-expensive-window-did-i-do-the-right-thing/72#post_1035191"] By choosing that house, the homeowner has accepted the risk that an errant ball will come through his window.  He also accepts the risk that the golfer will run away and he will have to replace the window on his own dime. But, I think that it is incorrect to say that he is somehow "responsible". [/quote] It's correct if he doesn't take any reasonable precautions. It's not like the golf course appeared out of thin air behind his house, as David seems to think happened.

[Golfingdad]

Placing liability for an average golfer hitting a reasonable shot that just goes awry on that golfer strikes me as bad policy. It disincentivizes the golf course from taking precautions to prevent damage, like putting up netting or planting trees. I have no idea what case law says about this, but my intuition would be that the golf course's insurance or the golf course itself, ought to indemnify golfers for any damages they cause in the course of reasonable golf play.

Now, this calculus would change in my mind if we're talking about golfers taking crazy risks, cutting corners they're asked not to cut, or generally screwing around.

But you want to place liability where it has some public policy benefit. Asking a golfer not to hit a randomly bad shot isn't behavior we (legally) want to encourage. Encouraging golf courses to design around dangers for neighbors or take measures to mitigate damage is behavior we want to encourage.

All great points.  Maybe we've been going about this all wrong and that's why everybody is so flabbergasted at the other side.  It's the players fault!  It's the homeowners fault!  But the course gets a free pass beacuse they put up a silly sign and just tell us it's our problem to work out??  Why??

Now I'm curious to see what the HOA CC&R;'s for neighborhoods around here that are on golf courses have to say about it.

[dsc123]

Did your parents teach you that you can make excuses for your lack of responsibility? It sounds like you're doing that: excusing the homeowner from every bit of his legal and moral culpability. "Oh, the homeowner didn't know there was a golf course there, he should be able to treat his house the same as he would in the middle of nowhere." Maybe those weren't your exact words, but we all got the message.

I think the same thing when I read all the "personal responsibility" comments.  Many only seek to hold one party responsible for their actions, ignoring the role played by others.

[Dave2512]

Encouraging golf courses to design around dangers for neighbors or take measures to mitigate damage is behavior we want to encourage.

Any that are worth playing are usually aware of this. The only courses I've seen where houses are so close to be in play were probably there before the homes were built and the initial course design isn't compatible with the developers planning. I've heard of buyers being required to sign a waiver, it's disclosed at the time the contract is signed not at closing. Most of the golf communities that were designed correctly have ample room for errant shots and homes are situated where they would be nearly impossible to hit unless it was intentional. I'm going out later and I'll try to take some pics. My home course has a few holes with homes on both sides but at the middle they are wide enough to land a commercial airliner. Only time you are within a few yards of homes is on tee boxes and where the cart path goes around the green. You'd have to hit a slice or hook completely off the course. The areas on either side of the fairway not intended for play are as wide as the fairway and rough. The only time I've been near anyone's yard is if the ball hits the cart path and takes a huge bounce.

[rehmwa]

1 - the golfer - absolutely you apologize and and stop by - what if someone was hurt?  what if the house is empty and no one knows and weather rain, etc would cause further damage.  I'd want to apologize, check and see if everyone is ok, and maybe cover the window with plastic if the house is empty.  And, YES, i would drive over to the nearest Home Depot and get plastic sheet if needed.

2 - Who pays?

a - I absolutely don't care if the owner is rich or poor, that has NOTHING to do with it - noting that the house is huge and expensive is a disgusting excuse for not checking on them

b - the owner is responsible for the repairs, it's his choice to live there.  He needs either insurance, or an agreement with the golf course, or whatever

c - the player has the option to offer, but I don't see that as a moral imperative in terms of an accident

[Lihu]

All great points.  Maybe we've been going about this all wrong and that's why everybody is so flabbergasted at the other side.  It's the players fault!  It's the homeowners fault!  But the course gets a free pass beacuse they put up a silly sign and just tell us it's our problem to work out??  Why??

Now I'm curious to see what the HOA CC&R;'s for neighborhoods around here that are on golf courses have to say about it.

At the place where I was looking to buy, the houses adjacent to the courses needed to pay a premium for their HOA fees which presumably covers their "insurance". The other thing I was told is that they have high impact resistance glass on the course facing windows, and apparently didn't work out for that one window.

[Dave2512]

I think the same thing when I read all the "personal responsibility" comments.  Many only seek to hold one party responsible for their actions, ignoring the role played by others.

But some of the examples are flat out silly concerning owner responsibility. Akin to saying it's a parent's fault their kid gets hit by a car if they have to cross street on the way to school. Think about the last time you played a course surrounded by homes. Were any really in the path of play or would it require a drastically off-line shot to get there. Not just bad shot but bad enough to fly clear of course property.

[Lihu]

But some of the examples are flat out silly concerning owner responsibility. Akin to saying it's a parent's fault their kid gets hit by a car if they have to cross street on the way to school. Think about the last time you played a course surrounded by homes. Were any really in the path of play or would it require a drastically off-line shot to get there. Not just bad shot but bad enough to fly clear of course property.

The builders can be blamed as much as anyone else for putting a hazardous condition so near the homes they are building.  Many of the courses in the CA are very close to homes surrounding. Price of land is really high around here, and I imagine that land is pretty expensive near the OP as well given a 5M price?

[dsc123]

But some of the examples are flat out silly concerning owner responsibility. Akin to saying it's a parent's fault their kid gets hit by a car if they have to cross street on the way to school. Think about the last time you played a course surrounded by homes. Were any really in the path of play or would it require a drastically off-line shot to get there. Not just bad shot but bad enough to fly clear of course property.

I think you* make too much of the fact that the house is not on the course.  Off-line, OB, shots are very common .  And they're not a result of lack of caution--its not like balls only go OB when the player isn't paying attention or something.  The guy buying a house next to a course knows that his house will be hit with many golf balls.  Probably every day.  He is aware of the risk, and he accepts the risk.

Your scenario of crossing the street isn't very analogous because the house is certain to get hit frequently.  Its more like, if you lived in a city and regularly left your golf clubs outside unattended.  Yes, the thief that takes them is in the wrong, but how about taking "personal responsibility" by protecting yourself from the obvious and inevitable outcome?

*I may also be conflating you and Dave in FL

[Dave2512]

The builders can be blamed as much as anyone else for putting a hazardous condition so near the homes they are building.  Many of the courses in the CA are very close to homes surrounding. Price of land is really high around here, and I imagine that land is pretty expensive near the OP as well given a 5M price?

I can't think of any public courses here with homes that expensive. The only one I've actually been on with very expensive homes is my parents club. And there are a few that sit too close to the course but the course was remodeled 13 years ago so the original design isn't to blame. One hole was changed from a short par 4 to a par 5 with a forced carry over a sizable pond. A big house backs to the pond on the right. Initially it would have been immediately left of the tee box with zero chance of a ball hitting it. Now they have a very high and wide net around it.

I believe I have a picture of it. To the left of the fairway you can see what's left of the original hole, they use half the fairway and the old green as a practice area. The new green is over the hill where the cart is.