or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Houses Next to Course
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Houses Next to Course - Page 3

post #37 of 108

Neither of those cases has to do with property damage. There are numerous cases about bodily harm (because the damages get get huge). Property damage not so much.  Most of those are suits against the course not an individual golfer.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkyfred72 View Post


I'll have to look around again, but yesterday I found a couple in Illinois.  I'll post the website when I find it again. 

 

1 case was with a woman who got hit in the eye at a pro tournament and lost vision in that eye.  The court awarded her something around 32K I think, to be payed by the golf course.  But the jury or judge (can't remeber which) found that the pro player that hit the shot should not held liable.

 

The other case was about a house on a golf course.  A woman was hit in the head while on her deck.  The court held the golf course responsible for not protecting against golf balls hitting her deck, since she proved golf balls had hit her deck before.

 

In both of these cases, the player was not held responsible.
 



 



 

post #38 of 108

It's bad design to have a house too close, or in the field of play.  If a house gets hit often, it's in the field of play. No golfer has any clue as to the outcome of their next shot....Property Damage cases are few, yes, due to the lack of return for your investment, ie lawyer fees. The golf course thru its poor design will be held responsible.  The homeowner with damage may pursue the golfer, and that person possibly being uninformed may pay for damage he caused. The proper proceedure is the homeowner gets compensated by the golf course.  The day I damage a house and the owner approaches me about paying for damage will be a very unexpected conversation for that homeowner.  Sue me...Please. The potential for the counter lawsuit of mental anguish far exceeds any case of property damage.  30 years of dealing in liability insurance points to YA SHOULD HAVE KNOWN YOUR HOUSE IS GONNA GET DAMAGED BEING IN SUCH A STUPID PLACE. And when you try to sell it, guess what that stupid spot is gonna effect your value.  Several of the posters have done lots of research on this, I know. You will not come up with any credible data depicting anything other than what I have advised.  My arguement while at times is arrogant speaks from precise knowledge of case law on the subject.

Check out the lengths courses will go with fences and screens. Do they do that to protect you the golfer from lawsuits?  

post #39 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLOG4 View Post

It's bad design to have a house too close, or in the field of play.  If a house gets hit often, it's in the field of play. No golfer has any clue as to the outcome of their next shot....Property Damage cases are few, yes, due to the lack of return for your investment, ie lawyer fees. The golf course thru its poor design will be held responsible.  The homeowner with damage may pursue the golfer, and that person possibly being uninformed may pay for damage he caused. The proper proceedure is the homeowner gets compensated by the golf course.  The day I damage a house and the owner approaches me about paying for damage will be a very unexpected conversation for that homeowner.  Sue me...Please. The potential for the counter lawsuit of mental anguish far exceeds any case of property damage.  30 years of dealing in liability insurance points to YA SHOULD HAVE KNOWN YOUR HOUSE IS GONNA GET DAMAGED BEING IN SUCH A STUPID PLACE. And when you try to sell it, guess what that stupid spot is gonna effect your value.  Several of the posters have done lots of research on this, I know. You will not come up with any credible data depicting anything other than what I have advised.  My arguement while at times is arrogant speaks from precise knowledge of case law on the subject.

Check out the lengths courses will go with fences and screens. Do they do that to protect you the golfer from lawsuits?  



The most sound statement in this entire thread (the bolded part).  If a house is hit multiple times how can you fault one golfer.  What are you going to do, take 32 golfers to court?   The golf course is the one responsible, and you (the homeowners) are for lack of a better term an idiot for building a house near a golf course and expecting no one to hit your property with a golf ball.

post #40 of 108

I believe almost all, certainly a significant majority, of golf related personal injury suites are golfer suing golfer and not homeowner suing golfer.  Maybe the latter happens but I have never heard of it.  Most property damage suites are filed against the course or HOA and not the golfer who did the damage as they would be difficult to identify in most cases.  

 

The only point I was trying to make is that most (certainly many) homeowner on the golf course are golfers themselves.  So they certainly would like to see some consideration by fellow golfers to not attempt low probability shots that potentially could damage their property or personal health.  Showing such disregard for your fellow citizen's welfare and property is pretty callous, regardless of the law.  Why shouldn't a fellow citizen be able to purchase a house on a course expecting golfers to respect his property.  Should the owner expect to find some balls in his yard?  Sure, but what this thread seems to propose is that it is OK to damage his property just because someone want to make a shot that he knows has very little probability of success and high probability of damage to property, because the homeowner was dumb to build a house there where they can enjoy the view.  I don't buy that and I don't buy that the law would protect a golfer from liability of not showing reasonable care, although from a practical view you'll probably never identify the golfer unless he comes forward and would likely never be able to prove it wasn't just a lousy shot.  But threads that seem to encourage a lack of personal responsibility for the results your actions I find upsetting regardless of on or off the golf course.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

Neither of those cases has to do with property damage. There are numerous cases about bodily harm (because the damages get get huge). Property damage not so much.  Most of those are suits against the course not an individual golfer.
 



 



 

post #41 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghalfaire View Post

The only point I was trying to make is that most (certainly many) homeowner on the golf course are golfers themselves.  So they certainly would like to see some consideration by fellow golfers to not attempt low probability shots that potentially could damage their property or personal health.  Showing such disregard for your fellow citizen's welfare and property is pretty callous, regardless of the law.  Why shouldn't a fellow citizen be able to purchase a house on a course expecting golfers to respect his property.  Should the owner expect to find some balls in his yard?  Sure, but what this thread seems to propose is that it is OK to damage his property just because someone want to make a shot that he knows has very little probability of success and high probability of damage to property, because the homeowner was dumb to build a house there where they can enjoy the view. ... threads that seem to encourage a lack of personal responsibility for the results your actions I find upsetting regardless of on or off the golf course.


I could not agree more. I am disheartened by some of the responses here. Their logic doesn't make sense and demonstartes a high degree of callousness. Maybe they just don't grasp the seriousness of hitting a person or property with a goilf ball. After all, would they run over a jogger who is in the street just because they feel runners don't belong there? Would they dive off a into a pool onto a person directly below because they feel nobody should be there? Just puzzling why they can't put this into perspective.
 

 

post #42 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvisliveson View Post




I could not agree more. I am disheartened by some of the responses here. Their logic doesn't make sense and demonstartes a high degree of callousness. Maybe they just don't grasp the seriousness of hitting a person or property with a goilf ball. After all, would they run over a jogger who is in the street just because they feel runners don't belong there? Would they dive off a into a pool onto a person directly below because they feel nobody should be there? Just puzzling why they can't put this into perspective.
 

 



Yep.  I see far too much of the "I'm the only person who counts, so screw everyone else." attitude in this and other threads (see the etiquette thread in this forum).  It's an attitude that I just don't comprehend.  It's not like people are being asked to join the Peace Corps - just show some respect for others.  It doesn't take that much effort. g1_wacko.gif

post #43 of 108

 

I don't think anyone here is talking about cutting the corner over a house where they have to carry it 280 and they've carried it that far once in their life.  I'm just saying, if I'm playing a 430 yard par 4 dogleg right with the dogleg at 240 and house tucked right into the corner, I'm not gonna play a draw down the left side or hit 2h-3i and risk being behind the dogleg still (plus having to hit 3i into the green) because the owner built/bought a house in a retarded spot.  I'm gonna play a power fade with my driver starting mid-left and try to bring it past the corner but moving right so I don't lose the ball into the trees on the left side of the fairway past the dogleg.

 

That's not callousness.  When the owner built/bought that house they didn't suddenly gain the right to force every player on the course that was already there to play one of eighteen holes totally wrong.  Put up a giant net or suffer the consequences of buying a house exactly where the most common miss on the hole you're next to is going to land.  I'll make sure to yell fore really loud if I over fade it in case you're on your deck.

 

@Grumpter, as long as the golfer's not aiming directly over the houses, I don't really think there is an unreasonable distance.  There are lots of terrible golfers who through no lack of effort will regularly put the ball >80 yards to the right.  I play off about a 10 and I'll still jerk my shoulder out and push slice one that far right every couple rounds.  I just don't think the golfer shoulders any responsibility aside from not aiming at the houses or trying something ridiculous like threading it between two houses or something.

post #44 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdl View Post

 

I don't think anyone here is talking about cutting the corner over a house where they have to carry it 280 and they've carried it that far once in their life.  I'm just saying, if I'm playing a 430 yard par 4 dogleg right with the dogleg at 240 and house tucked right into the corner, I'm not gonna play a draw down the left side or hit 2h-3i and risk being behind the dogleg still (plus having to hit 3i into the green) because the owner built/bought a house in a retarded spot.  I'm gonna play a power fade with my driver starting mid-left and try to bring it past the corner but moving right so I don't lose the ball into the trees on the left side of the fairway past the dogleg.

 

That's not callousness.  When the owner built/bought that house they didn't suddenly gain the right to force every player on the course that was already there to play one of eighteen holes totally wrong.  Put up a giant net or suffer the consequences of buying a house exactly where the most common miss on the hole you're next to is going to land.  I'll make sure to yell fore really loud if I over fade it in case you're on your deck.

 

Um, actually what you posted is the epitome of callousness:

Definition of CALLOUS

2

a : feeling no emotion b : feeling or showing no sympathy for others : hard-hearted <a callous indifference to  
 
Noun 1. callousness - devoid of passion or feeling; hardheartedness
insensitiveness, insensitivity - the inability to respond to affective changes in your interpersonal environment 

 


Edited by Elvisliveson - 8/12/11 at 2:45pm
post #45 of 108

http://www.golfvic.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Errant_Golf_Balls&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2981 

 

This the best description of that which I speak....Bad design can cause problems.  Bad design creates undue risk for homes in the line of fire.  The golf course is primarily responsible.  It is up to the homeowner to gain their restitution of damages from the course not the golfer.....If a house is on the path to the hole on a dogleg it is not callous to aim at the intended target.  Utilizing stupid analogies of joggers and divers also exascerbates your inaneness.  It's individuals like you and 4putt that preach your crap to people thinking you know something.  Rather than circle back with more fodder of your stupidity please advise from where you derive your point of view?

 

X129 initially you were very critical of my point of view.  Where do you stand at this point? I'm thinking you have done some research and can't come up with any legal doctrine contrary to my findings.  I'll defer to your ruling Judge X129.

 

post #46 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLOG4 View Post

It's individuals like you and 4putt that preach your crap to people thinking you know something.  Rather than circle back with more fodder of your stupidity please advise from where you derive your point of view?

 

Just preaching kindness and understanding as an alternative to sociopathy. But, obviously some people aren't biting.f1_cool.gif

post #47 of 108

There isn't one answer to this question. Legally it depends on what state your in and even there it isn't clear with it sometimes changing depending on if the course or the houses were built first.  It is easy to find the assumption of risk cases because they are for big money due to damges to people. Those cases don't translate to property damage cases though.

 

In general if one window is broken, it is the golfers fault not the course. I am pretty sure saying "I shot the ball across private property in an attempt to shoot a lower score" is admitting responsbility.  Yeah it sucks not to be able to play the course the way you want. It sucks worse to get a window broken even without the financial hit. On every course I have played, the card says the golfer is responsible for the balls the hit. That probably isn't enough to establish legal liability. Now if the house is getting shelled, the house owners have been able to sucesfully sue golf courses for damages.

 

One thing to think about. Without those houses on the course, there would be a lot fewer golf courses out there. People talk about building on the course. Most of the modern developments are the reverse. They want to sell a crap load of houses and use the golf course as a tool to do that.

 

As far as your countersuit for mental anguish: You can definitely sue.  You would just be burning money though as you have pretty much zero chance of winning.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLOG4 View Post

http://www.golfvic.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Errant_Golf_Balls&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2981 

 

This the best description of that which I speak....Bad design can cause problems.  Bad design creates undue risk for homes in the line of fire.  The golf course is primarily responsible.  It is up to the homeowner to gain their restitution of damages from the course not the golfer.....If a house is on the path to the hole on a dogleg it is not callous to aim at the intended target.  Utilizing stupid analogies of joggers and divers also exascerbates your inaneness.  It's individuals like you and 4putt that preach your crap to people thinking you know something.  Rather than circle back with more fodder of your stupidity please advise from where you derive your point of view?

 

X129 initially you were very critical of my point of view.  Where do you stand at this point? I'm thinking you have done some research and can't come up with any legal doctrine contrary to my findings.  I'll defer to your ruling Judge X129.

 



 

post #48 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvisliveson View Post



Just preaching kindness and understanding as an alternative to sociopathy. But, obviously some people aren't biting.f1_cool.gif



THANK YOU VERY MUCH........with a drawl....

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

There isn't one answer to this question. Legally it depends on what state your in and even there it isn't clear with it sometimes changing depending on if the course or the houses were built first.  It is easy to find the assumption of risk cases because they are for big money due to damges to people. Those cases don't translate to property damage cases though.

 

In general if one window is broken, it is the golfers fault not the course. I am pretty sure saying "I shot the ball across private property in an attempt to shoot a lower score" is admitting responsbility.  Yeah it sucks not to be able to play the course the way you want. It sucks worse to get a window broken even without the financial hit. On every course I have played, the card says the golfer is responsible for the balls the hit. That probably isn't enough to establish legal liability. Now if the house is getting shelled, the house owners have been able to sucesfully sue golf courses for damages.

 

One thing to think about. Without those houses on the course, there would be a lot fewer golf courses out there. People talk about building on the course. Most of the modern developments are the reverse. They want to sell a crap load of houses and use the golf course as a tool to do that.

 

As far as your countersuit for mental anguish: You can definitely sue.  You would just be burning money though as you have pretty much zero chance of winning.

 



 



 

post #49 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghalfaire View Post

I believe almost all, certainly a significant majority, of golf related personal injury suites are golfer suing golfer and not homeowner suing golfer.  Maybe the latter happens but I have never heard of it. 


 


It happens, as in this recent case in Illinois.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-25/news/ct-met-golf-ball-dismiss-0226-20110225_1_lillian-demo-naperville-golfer-golf-courses

 

If the link doesn't work, a woman got conked in the head by an errant drive while in her garden. The golf course did settle for $30K. After a year, the judge threw out her suit against the golfer.  I know and play the course involved, one of my favorite local courses.

 

 

 

post #50 of 108

I'm sorry but this is just stupid.  If a baseball player hits a home run and it hits a fan in the head is the baseball player at fault?  This is the exact same thing.  By building a house on a golf course you are taking the chance that you might get hit.  If you golf you are taking the chance that you might be hit.  If you walk by a golf course you are taking a chance that you might get hit.  

 

Who every compared this to running over a jogger with a car needs help (with all do respect, watch Talledega Nights if i say "With all do respect" it means that you can say what ever you want ;)).  You have full control over your car (in most cases), but you have very limited control over where your golf ball lands.  It's not disrespecting some one if you hit their house, if it is near the course, it is an ACCIDENT.  I hit trees all the time golfing, a nature lover could find this to be an injustice, but I don't see you people supporting their cause.

 

Again bottom line Houses Don't belong near a golf course.  

post #51 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by trackster View Post

I'm sorry but this is just stupid.  If a baseball player hits a home run and it hits a fan in the head is the baseball player at fault?  This is the exact same thing.  By building a house on a golf course you are taking the chance that you might get hit.  If you golf you are taking the chance that you might be hit.  If you walk by a golf course you are taking a chance that you might get hit.  

 

Who every compared this to running over a jogger with a car needs help (with all do respect, watch Talledega Nights if i say "With all do respect" it means that you can say what ever you want ;)).  You have full control over your car (in most cases), but you have very limited control over where your golf ball lands.  It's not disrespecting some one if you hit their house, if it is near the course, it is an ACCIDENT.  I hit trees all the time golfing, a nature lover could find this to be an injustice, but I don't see you people supporting their cause.

 

Again bottom line Houses Don't belong near a golf course.  



You missed the point of the analogy or perhaps just didn't read carefully enough or proccess what I was responding to in the thread.  Some here were saying they would deliberately cut the dog leg with a house directly in their path and many of us were wondering why they would show intentional disregard for a person's property and safety in that manner.   And I said perhaps it was because they just didn't grasp the gravity of hitting someone or something with a golf ball. For instance, those same people wouldn't deliberately run down a jogger who was in their path or deliberately dive into a pool onto someone because they can understand the immediate danger.  And btw, joggers get hit by cars over all the time, and those instances are more often than not accidents too; doesn't mean the driver couldn't have exercised more caution.  And that's the thing why do some golfers feel the need to throw caution to the wind just because they personally feel "houses don't belong on golf courses"?  What doesn't make sense is if you hit trees all the time like you said why would you deliberately try to pull off a shot that if unsuccesful could result in property damage or a person getting hurt?


Edited by Elvisliveson - 8/12/11 at 7:04pm
post #52 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

There isn't one answer to this question. Legally it depends on what state your in and even there it isn't clear with it sometimes changing depending on if the course or the houses were built first.  It is easy to find the assumption of risk cases because they are for big money due to damges to people. Those cases don't translate to property damage cases though.

 

In general if one window is broken, it is the golfers fault not the course. I am pretty sure saying "I shot the ball across private property in an attempt to shoot a lower score" is admitting responsbility.  Yeah it sucks not to be able to play the course the way you want. It sucks worse to get a window broken even without the financial hit. On every course I have played, the card says the golfer is responsible for the balls the hit. That probably isn't enough to establish legal liability. Now if the house is getting shelled, the house owners have been able to sucesfully sue golf courses for damages.

 

One thing to think about. Without those houses on the course, there would be a lot fewer golf courses out there. People talk about building on the course. Most of the modern developments are the reverse. They want to sell a crap load of houses and use the golf course as a tool to do that.

 

As far as your countersuit for mental anguish: You can definitely sue.  You would just be burning money though as you have pretty much zero chance of winning.

 



 

X129- I gave you too much credit.

1]House built, course built first arguement....In both cases the golfer is not liable in this specific example debated. see 4  below

2] The assumption of risk cases all depict findings as per my observations...Poor design trumps errant shots. Course pays.

3]

Ticket Stubs and Waivers

Waivers are often found on the backside of ticket stubs for sporting and entertainment events. Most fans do not read these waivers (many are not even aware of the existence of the waiver on the back). Defendants will often raise as a defense to a negligence claim that such language should relieve them from liability. Generally, these waivers are virtually unenforceable since there was no intent on the part of the fan to agree to such terms. Also at issue is the lack of informed consent, and the courts have traditionally refused to impose such waivers on fans as a matter of public policy.[1]  

 

Follows for scorecards too.  And "every course I have played"  BS utter&total BS....Reread your scorecards....I collect scorecards.  I have over 1000. Maybe 10% have the verbiage of which you speak.  You are a fibber.

4] Any house that is situated like the example this OP speaks of shall be SHELLED. Your analysis says "house owners have sucesfully sue golf courses for damages"

5] One thing to think about....You go off subject thinking your sidebar is what, intelligent, informed, insightfull...Stay on subject that way you will have a better chance to survive a debate you know far less about. You should be spanked for that.

6] Mental Anguish cases are some of the most successfull....You know why? I have sued twice[not mental anguish], represented myself and won twice. You know why? Cheaper to settle.... 

Your drival got old. If you want to debate stay on point, do not initiate analogies and other stories. Know the subject matter and even if your foe is obnoxious like me, stay focused. 

I'm gonna give you a D on this project.


*ticket stubs and waivers pulled from some US Law review website
 

 

post #53 of 108


Well my last post on this subject as I can see I'm trying to teach a pig to read in several cases here.  But I was not trying to address your legal responsibility as I am not a lawyer but would like to think that in general the law holds people responsible for their actions.  But for some of you who don't seem to care, you should know that several people have been killed by errant shots so this discussion isn't really just about just breaking a window or damage to stucco.  Those can be replaced with money.  But do serious damage or kill someone and that isn't fixable.  So next time you decide to "exercise you rights" and cut that dog leg think about the potential damage you might do to someone's life.  I admit it isn't a likely event, but it is not impossible either and the consequences to the victim and potentially to you can be life changing.  For what?  To save a stroke and satisfy your ego?  Does potentially saving one stroke really make the risk worth it?  If you really hate houses around golf courses don't play those courses as there are many courses that don't have houses around them.  Well OK I'm finished but hope you'll give it some thought.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdl View Post

 

I don't think anyone here is talking about cutting the corner over a house where they have to carry it 280 and they've carried it that far once in their life.  I'm just saying, if I'm playing a 430 yard par 4 dogleg right with the dogleg at 240 and house tucked right into the corner, I'm not gonna play a draw down the left side or hit 2h-3i and risk being behind the dogleg still (plus having to hit 3i into the green) because the owner built/bought a house in a retarded spot.  I'm gonna play a power fade with my driver starting mid-left and try to bring it past the corner but moving right so I don't lose the ball into the trees on the left side of the fairway past the dogleg.

 

That's not callousness.  When the owner built/bought that house they didn't suddenly gain the right to force every player on the course that was already there to play one of eighteen holes totally wrong.  Put up a giant net or suffer the consequences of buying a house exactly where the most common miss on the hole you're next to is going to land.  I'll make sure to yell fore really loud if I over fade it in case you're on your deck.

 

@Grumpter, as long as the golfer's not aiming directly over the houses, I don't really think there is an unreasonable distance.  There are lots of terrible golfers who through no lack of effort will regularly put the ball >80 yards to the right.  I play off about a 10 and I'll still jerk my shoulder out and push slice one that far right every couple rounds.  I just don't think the golfer shoulders any responsibility aside from not aiming at the houses or trying something ridiculous like threading it between two houses or something.



 

post #54 of 108

It's only illegal if you don't get caught. Who cares. Hit 20 balls into the house. Then run!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Houses Next to Course