Jump to content
IGNORED

Negligence if your ball hits someone off the course?


DocWu1948
Note: This thread is 4776 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

This happened at a course I have played at. Golfer hit a woman gardening in her back yard. Woman sues. Judge ruled that the lawsuit can proceed.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...golf-ball.html
That 17th hole happens to be one of my favorites, a par 5 with a 100 yard carry over a pond just before the green. It's not narrow and lots of tall trees left. I never noticed that there were houses back there. Just guessing, a short high pop up off the tee and hard left to get into a yard.

Tough call. Personally, if the golfer is experienced, I would not call it negligence. Just bad luck on both parties here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


She assumes the risk of living on a golf course. How was the golfer supposed to call fore it the trees were blocking his view? I think an incident like this is bogus. Just like the comments on the story, its no different than living next to an airport and complaining about noise....get real.

Kyle Paulhus

If you really want to get better, check out Evolvr

:callaway: Rogue ST 10.5* | :callaway: Epic Sub Zero 15* | :tmade: P790 3 Driving Iron |:titleist: 716 AP2 |  :edel: Wedges 50/54/68 | :edel: Deschutes 36"

Career Low Round: 67 (18 holes), 32 (9 holes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

She assumes the risk of living on a golf course. How was the golfer supposed to call fore it the trees were blocking his view? I think an incident like this is bogus.

Yep. I asked this of a buddy of mine who is in the know of that kind of stuff because he's in real estate. He knows of the laws about living on a golf course.

You assume the risk of your health and property when living on a golf course is what he told me. If you're a golfer and hit a wayward shot and it hits a house and breaks a window or something, while you may feel bad, you're not liable. I would just assume this would include actually hitting someone as well, but I'm not sure. Obviously the judge doesn't think so. For a lady living on a golf course to sue a golfer who hit her is quite rediculous, IMO. You got a tough break lady, but I'm sure you're not scarred for life. Let it go.

TM R11/Titleist 910F 15*/ Nike SQ2 20* & 23*/ Nike CCi 5-PW/ Nike SV 52* & 56*/ SC Newport 2 Studio Style 32.5"
Nike 20XIx/Pro V1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yep. I asked this of a buddy of mine who is in the know of that kind of stuff because he's in real estate. He knows of the laws about living on a golf course.

Actually there have been cases where the golf course operator, builder, home builder etc have been sued successfully because they failed to leave reasonable green space between the fairway and houses, built houses to close to the golf course, or designed the course in such a way that it directed shots towards a home raising the risk. Of course I have seen drunks purposely try to hit an office building well off line from the driving range I frequent, also I have played a number of courses with doglegs which instruct you to not try to cut the corner. because of pools, apartments, or houses. People who try it anyway and screw up might have some liability.

1W Cleveland LauncherComp 10.5, 3W Touredge Exotics 15 deg.,FY Wilson 19.5 degree
4 and 5H, 6I-GW Callaway Razr, SW, LW Cleveland Cg-14, Putter Taylor Made Suzuka, Ball, Srixon XV Yellow

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you chose to live next to a golf course you should expect the occational ball to be hit into your yard. Just a nother bogus lawsuit in my opinion. Sounds like something that would happen in Chicago.

Driver.... Nickent DX Evolver V2 65 stiff /07 Burner YS6+ stiff .
4 wood..... Nickent 4DX
Hybrids.....Tour Edge Geomax 22* 25* 28*
Irons.....TM R7 6-P + AW,SW,LW
Putter.....Odyssey White Hot XG 2 BallBag.......Callaway ORG 14 A.L.I.C.E. Ball........Bridgestone e6 / Srixon Soft Feel...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The case will be controlled by comparative fault with jury determining percentages of fault on the homeowner and the golfer. The home owner does assume some risk which generally is element of fault by living on golf course. It is reasonable for the homeowner to expect golfers to follow the rules of the game and yell fore if ball heading off the course. This is likely going to be the key. Golfer is not going to be found at fault for simply hitting bad shot. Question is whether acted reasonablly and within the rules of the game once hit that bad shot. There are not enough facts to make a determination that this is bogus lawsuit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Tough call. Personally, if the golfer is experienced, I would not call it negligence.

An inexperienced golfer is no more liable for an errant shot than a PGA tour pro. Everyone hits bad shots. Here's the actual wording, from the linked article:

"Demo sued in 2007, contending Kinney was negligent by failing to aim properly, failing to properly execute the swing of his golf club and failing to warn her the ball was approaching... [Judge] Elsner said she couldn't seek damages for failure to warn because someone in the Kinney party did yell "fore." But he said the case on the other two claims could continue." Failing to properly aim or execute the swing happens 1000 times a day on every golf course in the country. Actually I think the judge is the negligent one here, for making this ruling without apparently having any idea about how the game of golf is played. Either that or he's simply a moron.
...its no different than living next to an airport and complaining about noise....get real.

As one of the commenters in the article pointed out, I think a better analogy is living next to an airport and having a piece of the plane fall on you. If the piece fell off due to negligence, then a lawsuit is warranted. The problem is, the analogy still breaks down because "failing to aim or execute the golf swing properly" is in no way negligent.

Question is whether acted reasonablly and within the rules of the game once hit that bad shot. There are not enough facts to make a determination that this is bogus lawsuit.

The article states that at least one person yelled "fore", and that the guy who hit the ball left his contact info. I'm not sure what other facts would be necessary to determine he had acted reasonably.

- Bill

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Golfer is not going to be found at fault for simply hitting bad shot. Question is whether acted reasonablly and within the rules of the game once hit that bad shot. There are not enough facts to make a determination that this is bogus lawsuit.

I hope he didnt attempt to play it out of her yard! lol

  • Upvote 1

Kyle Paulhus

If you really want to get better, check out Evolvr

:callaway: Rogue ST 10.5* | :callaway: Epic Sub Zero 15* | :tmade: P790 3 Driving Iron |:titleist: 716 AP2 |  :edel: Wedges 50/54/68 | :edel: Deschutes 36"

Career Low Round: 67 (18 holes), 32 (9 holes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The guy didn't intentionally aim for her and someone yelled "fore" - I don't see the liability.

Driver: Nike Ignite 10.5 w/ Fujikura Motore F1
2H: King Cobra
4H: Nickent 4DX
5H: Adams A3
6I 7I 8I 9I PW: Mizuno mp-57Wedges: Mizuno MP T-10 50, 54, 58 Ball: random

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The guy didn't intentionally aim for her and someone yelled "fore" - I don't see the liability.

Exactly - no reasonable person would disagree with that, yet the judge has. That's what's so troubling to me.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ya gotta love liberal judges. Any such cases I've heard of in the last 20 years or so are ruled in favor of the defendant. The jury/judge rules that owning a home on a golf course brings with it an implied acceptance of risk.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Naperville businessman Raymond Kinney, an "experienced golfer" according to a lawsuit, struck the ball on the 17th tee as his foursome participated in the club's annual DuPage County Republican Day.

This bit made me think to consider something else. What if Mr. Kinney had been drinking, would that possibly be considered negligent? We can't drink and drive (after a limit, often .08) because drinking makes driving more dangerous. How about on the golf course? Surely, drinking TOO much could render even an experienced golfer a mis-hitting menace.

I think that could have some bearing on a finding of negligence. However...rather than litigate a billion cases, it's better if you just realize that as a homeowner adjacent to a golf course, that balls will be flying in so be careful and realize you assumed the risk when you bought.

Driver: Nike Ignite 10.5 w/ Fujikura Motore F1
2H: King Cobra
4H: Nickent 4DX
5H: Adams A3
6I 7I 8I 9I PW: Mizuno mp-57Wedges: Mizuno MP T-10 50, 54, 58 Ball: random

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is a frivolous lawsuit and should never even have been allowed. She is basically suing him because he can't perform his swing like a robot. And that the failure to warn part is perhaps the most troubling. We don't know the circumstances, but if he didn't know it COULD hit someone and therefore didn't yell that part would have been allowed too!

The worst part of this is there is a chance there is a real good/bad lawyer and/or a bad jury that will side with the woman. Even if he wins, he will probably have to pay lawyer fees, so even if he wins he loses.

In my KZG Stand Bag:
919THI 11* w/ OBAN Revenge 6 (S)
919THI 16.5* w/ OBAN Revenge 7 (S)
KZG 18* & 22* U Iron w/ Matrix Studio 84 (S)
KZG 5-PW Cavity Back Forged III w/ N.S. Pro 1050 GH (S)KZG Forged TRS 50*, 54*, 58* w/ N.S. Pro 1050 GH (S)Kirk Currie/Wright San Saba 33" e7 or TriSpeed uProMy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I wonder what would happen in this case. There is a city road that runs parallel to a fairway on my course. I saw a golfer hit out of bounds into the road and bust a car window. The guy stopped and the golfer gave him insurance info and he paid(or insurance) for the guys window. I wonder what would be the liability in this situation if the driver ran off the road and was killed?

 Sub 70 849 9* driver

:callaway:  Rogue 3 & 5 woods, Rogue X 4 & 5 hybrids

:tmade: SIM 2 6-gap irons

:cobra:  King snakebite grove wedges 52 & 58*

 :ping: Heppler ZB3 putter

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As if there aren't enough things to worry about on the course. A judge now wants us to be aware of gardeners, and not hit a bad shot into someones yard for fear of a lawsuit.

Obviously, out of being a decent person, if you fire a bad shot and it has the potential to enter into someones private property, and they happen to be outside, you yell toward them to warn them. I don't know of one golfer who wouldn't do that.

We don't need a judge to now say that if it hits someone on their private property that the golfer can now be sued for it. Rediculous.

I would think there would be some kind of waiver that homeowners sign saying that they accept responsibility of living on a course and that they can't sue the course or an individual golfer for something that may occur. No? Is there such a thing? I would think the course that the house is on would insist that waivers like that be read, understood, and signed by any homeowner living on their course. I would think they would want to avoid being sued and having any member being sued by a homeowner.

TM R11/Titleist 910F 15*/ Nike SQ2 20* & 23*/ Nike CCi 5-PW/ Nike SV 52* & 56*/ SC Newport 2 Studio Style 32.5"
Nike 20XIx/Pro V1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites


While I don't think the golfer should be held responsible (assuming things we don't actually know about the case are reasonable---fore was called properly, he was aiming down the fairway, he was not falling down drunk and acting irresponsibly, etc), there's a difference between allowing a case to proceed and actually agreeing with the plaintiff.

Note that he threw out the one claim (failure to warn) on the fact, presumably agreed upon by both parties, that warning was given. Since both parties agreed on the fact, there was no reason to test that, the claim could not possibly succeed. That's the sort of thing that a judge throws out. If there is any dispute of facts, or if the law is not settled, I don't see that the judge had much choice. Whether the law is such that the golfer is responsible or not is a question that relies on facts (that must be settled) and laws that may or may not agree with our casual sense of right or wrong.
Ya gotta love liberal judges

I don't see how this is a liberal issue. All the judge has said is that the facts are not sufficiently established to preemptively rule that the lawsuit cannot succeed. It seems to me that this is a conservative approach to the law. Whether you agree with the plaintiff or not, the way legal questions are answered is normally via trial, not by a bench ruling. Heck, if you buy the Republican claims, it's those damn activist liberal judges that we have to watch out for---you know, the ones that do things like create laws through rulings rather than merely applying the laws as written by the legislature. (I don't actually buy those claims, just sayin')

  • Upvote 1

In the bag:
FT-iQ 10° driver, FT 21° neutral 3H
T-Zoid Forged 15° 3W, MX-23 4-PW
Harmonized 52° GW, Tom Watson 56° SW, X-Forged Vintage 60° LW
White Hot XG #1 Putter, 33"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


In Australia -- and, it seems, in the United States as well -- people playing golf do owe a duty of care to those around them.

In Australia, the law has been summarised as follows:
The law which imposes a general duty of care on those whose activities might cause harm to others applies to participants in sporting activities, although the application of the law and the imposition of the duty is affected by the circumstances of the activity. No separate or different duty of care applies to those who take part in sporting or recreational pursuits. The test for the duty and its breach is what would the reasonable man in the particular situation have foreseen and done. ... If there are hazards associated with a particular activity which are inherent in it participants will be taken to have consented to the risk of the harm from those inherent dangers.

Broadly speaking, I imagine that the same principles apply in the US.

There is an Australian case ( Ollier v Magnetic Island Country Club Inc [2003] QSC 263) where a player hit a shot from a teeing ground that struck another player farther down the fairway. The defendant was held to be liable in negligence to the (very seriously) injured plaintiff because a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have been aware that the plaintiff was in range and was therefore in danger of being struck and injured by the ball. An injury resulting from being struck by a golf ball in this manner was held not to be an inherent risk of playing golf. In another Australian case ( Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119), the defendant player, a proficient golfer, played a shot to the green that travelled left and struck a group of trees farther down the hole; the ball rebounded off one of the trees and struck the plaintiff player, who was standing within the trees looking for his ball. He was seriously injured. The allegations of negligence made by the plaintiff against the defendant came down to the following:
Hitting his second shot when the plaintiff was in front and in range. Hitting the shot without warning the plaintiff that he was about to hit. Hitting the shot without first looking to see if the plaintiff was in front and in range. Failing to ensure that the plaintiff had heard the warning and was watching the defendant take his shot so as to observe the direction of the ball after it left the club face. Failing to warn the plaintiff that the ball was coming his way by shouting ‘Fore’.

I'll discuss this case at some length because it's illustrative of the way that common law courts deal with these issues. The trial judge decided that there was nothing to the first allegation: when they played the hole, the parties were complying with a local rule relating to "pace of play", which required each of them to find his ball and be ready to play when it was his turn. Accordingly, the plaintiff had moved farther down the fairway than the defendant, and the defendant had expected him to do so; in these circumstances, it wasn't negligent for the defendant to have played his shot. The third allegation was also dismissed because the defendant was aware of the plaintiff's position. As to the first and fourth allegations, the trial judge held that no such warning was necessary. The most significant factor was that, when the plaintiff had moved ahead of the defendant, he had expected the defendant to take his shot when the green had cleared. He knew the green had cleared. This meant that a warning would not have conveyed any new information to the plaintiff -- a fact that ordinarily means, at law, that a warning need not be given. The trial judge also considered that the defendant was a good golfer that could be relied upon to hit his ball along its intended line; that the plaintiff was in a group of trees that could reasonably be expected to provide cover from a wayward ball; and that, when the defendant took his shot, the plaintiff was not in sight and appeared to have taken cover in the trees. The final allegation was also dismissed. The evidence established that the defendant had yelled something to the effect of "Watch out!", which the trial judge decided was sufficient warning. He adding, amusingly:
"Fore" is a cry of warning, but so is "Watch out". I would have thought the two were synonymous, even though the former is preferred by golfers and is their traditional and most common warning. Either warning conveys the same message of impending danger from an approaching golf ball.

In relation to the case in Illinois, unless the allegation that the defendant failed to aim properly actually means that he intentionally aimed for the plaintiff, it's difficult to see how the case can succeed. That allegation, and the allegation that he failed to execute his swing properly, are really just allegations that he "caused" her injury. If that is so, the case should fail because it addresses only the causation element of negligence. As the trial judge remarked in

Pollard above, this is not sufficient:
Nor is it sensible to allege that it was negligent to ‘cause, permit or allow’ his ball to strike the plaintiff. That particular would impose absolute liability on the defendant. It is an allegation that he was negligent because his ball struck the plaintiff, and assumes that which is to be proved.

  • Upvote 1
Current setup:
Titleist 909D2 9.5°, Diamana Blue Stiff | Titleist 909F2 15.5°, Diamana Blue Stiff | Mizuno MP-57 3-P, Nippon NS Pro 1050GH Stiff | Titleist Vokey SM 54.11, 60.07 | Scotty Cameron ACVII / Napa California | Titleist Pro V1X
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 4776 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...