Originally Posted by x129
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.
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.
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