That's not so. I think "ordinary care" requires you to not make a shot that has a reasonable probability of endangering people or property. If you're a scratch golfer and can carry the dog leg over the house 19 times out of 20 OK. If you're a 25 handicap and it is likely outcome if you try to carry the dog leg is that you'll hit the house, then you are liable for the damage and unless you have good homeowner's insurance, better consider laying up. But you cannot hit a shot that you know has a reasonable probability of damaging someone or property without liability for the outcome. So if you're a 25 handicap and smart you'll lay up as it is reckless to attempt a shot that is low probability if it can damage someone or their property.
As for the "road hole", well all I can say is; USA law doesn't apply in Scotland and those guy are really good. Put the usually USA public links Saturday crowd on that tee and probably the hotel would move or build a fence to deflect/stop errant shots like you see on a lot of public course in America.
While it is true that the homeowner does assume some liability for damages by being close to a golf course, so does the golfer assume responsibility for taking "ordinary care" to not do damage to homes surrounding the course. After all you knew the course had homes around it when you chose to play there.
For full disclosure I do own a home on a golf course. But unlike the one on the dog leg, being a golfer myself, I used some common sense in selecting the site. It is between a green and the next tee box and you have to be pretty lousy golfer to hit my house on accident. In 10 years I maybe have collected a dozen balls from the back yard. None were PRO V1.
Originally Posted by FLOG4
He's aiming at the green. The house is just an incidental obstruction. It is not reckless to aim at the intended target. The road hole of St Andrews is a prime example. The hotel is on the edge of play.