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 5

post #73 of 108

This is the exact opposite of the US in general. The person that cause the damages (i.e. your kid hits a baseball through the neighbors window, you rear end someones car in a fault state,...) pays for the accident. Obviously that person that caused the damage can have insurance to cover the cost. And there are also tons of exceptions. Both systems have good and bad points.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post

Not much to add, but in Finland, and I would assume also in most other places, the principle is that the one who has suffered damage due to an accident bears also the costs. This is the main principle. That's why most people take insurances. 



 

post #74 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by trackster View Post




If I was a potential house owner buying this lot, then I would do my homework.  Might watch the lot I planned on buying for a day.  If I notice a high traffic of golf balls to that area I might think twice about buying in that particular area.  

 

 

 


I agree with this.  It isn't too hard to figure out whether a given spot is likely to get much incoming or not.

 

post #75 of 108

How can I ever be in a situation where I am in bounds on a golf course and yet have the opportunity to play a shot whereby I can go over a house to go to the green?  If this is possible the designer F'd up. You would say no you must play back to the fairway....I could go thru numerous examples of match play scenarios where by my prudent play is go for the green.  You continue to revert back to the golfers responsibility............NO.........Change the design, plant more trees, build a fence, put up a net, or suffer the potential extreme liabilities inherent in smashing golf balls into bodies and houses. The golfers outcomes of shots are unpredictable even for the best golfer......The designers outcomes were obvious and full of desired income vs placing some houses and their occupants in harms way. 

 

 

post #76 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLOG4 View Post

How can I ever be in a situation where I am in bounds on a golf course and yet have the opportunity to play a shot whereby I can go over a house to go to the green?  If this is possible the designer F'd up. You would say no you must play back to the fairway....I could go thru numerous examples of match play scenarios where by my prudent play is go for the green.  You continue to revert back to the golfers responsibility............NO.........Change the design, plant more trees, build a fence, put up a net, or suffer the potential extreme liabilities inherent in smashing golf balls into bodies and houses. The golfers outcomes of shots are unpredictable even for the best golfer......The designers outcomes were obvious and full of desired income vs placing some houses and their occupants in harms way. 

 

 



I couldn't agree more.  If a house is in a spot where it could be in a line drawn from the green to your ball, and the ball is still in play then the house doesn't belong there.

post #77 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

This is the exact opposite of the US in general. The person that cause the damages (i.e. your kid hits a baseball through the neighbors window, you rear end someones car in a fault state,...) pays for the accident. Obviously that person that caused the damage can have insurance to cover the cost. And there are also tons of exceptions. Both systems have good and bad points.
 



No offence but I doubt what you are writing. There may be a common practice of paying the damage caused to another party. But in most cases this would be done either by common courtesy or by a threat of civil law suit. In the court the case would scrutinised and the possible intent, negligence or whatever would be taken into account.

 

Motor vehicle accident is not a good example as in many (most?) countries the law require you to have an insurance for third party damages.

 

post #78 of 108

Why do you think insurance changes legal liability? 

 

Here is what my homeowners insurances says about liability insurance.

"Provides coverage for bodily injury or property damage for which you are legally responsible. For example, if your dog bites someone, a guest falls down your front stairs, or your son throws a ball through your neighbor's window. You are legally responsible for these actions and Personal Liability helps to cover the associated costs of these related damages."  .Now there are tons of details (You hand me a wine glass and I drop it is a bit different than I throw I football through your bay window even though both are accidents) which change specific cases.

 

I am a bit surprised that no one here has broken a window, refused to pay, and gotten sued. I am guessing that is because they didn't leave contact info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post





No offence but I doubt what you are writing. There may be a common practice of paying the damage caused to another party. But in most cases this would be done either by common courtesy or by a threat of civil law suit. In the court the case would scrutinised and the possible intent, negligence or whatever would be taken into account.

 

Motor vehicle accident is not a good example as in many (most?) countries the law require you to have an insurance for third party damages.

 



 

post #79 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

Why do you think insurance changes legal liability? 

 

Here is what my homeowners insurances says about liability insurance.

"Provides coverage for bodily injury or property damage for which you are legally responsible. For example, if your dog bites someone, a guest falls down your front stairs, or your son throws a ball through your neighbor's window. You are legally responsible for these actions and Personal Liability helps to cover the associated costs of these related damages."  .Now there are tons of details (You hand me a wine glass and I drop it is a bit different than I throw I football through your bay window even though both are accidents) which change specific cases.

 

No, I am not saying the insurance would change the liability. But I would be interested in seeing the parts of law that would, by default, make me responsible for my guests injuries if they would fall down my front stairs.

 

addition: after reading more about "tort law", I find best practice to get most comprehensive umbrella insurance and sue the rest. If living in US, that is. I lived, but only for a year, not a bad year at all, but nobody luckily fell down my stairs. c3_clap.gif

post #80 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post

Not much to add, but in Finland, and I would assume also in most other places, the principle is that the one who has suffered damage due to an accident bears also the costs. This is the main principle. That's why most people take insurances. 



Ummmmm.... depends very much on the incident. In case there is a liable party having caused the incident it is that party that pays, or his insurance company. For example if I visit my neighbours and wreck their floor due to my clumsiness it is my insurance that pays, not my neighbour's. Same goes with all other types of incidents/accidents, eg. a traffic accident - guilty party pays.

post #81 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
Ummmmm.... depends very much on the incident. In case there is a liable party having caused the incident it is that party that pays, or his insurance company. For example if I visit my neighbours and wreck their floor due to my clumsiness it is my insurance that pays, not my neighbour's. Same goes with all other types of incidents/accidents, eg. a traffic accident - guilty party pays.


I have to take now back what I said. I just read the "liability law" in Finland and it is very much the same as in USA. I must have confused something and I think I know what it was. There was, some time ago, a program where an insurance law person was explaining about how the liabilities in damage cases work. If I recall correctly he said what I wrote earlier, the one who suffers damages pays. But in case there is a liability, and after reading the law there certainly can be, then the liable party should pay.  The example he was explaining was a case of unknown person causing the damage and they tried to claim the damages from the insurance. But their insurance only covered 3rd party and they could not use it on their own property or something like that.

 

sigh. Forget whatever I said.

 

And I would love to own a house at Atlanta Athletic Club. I have good memories of Johns Creek, GA.

post #82 of 108

You can google for the stair falling cases (or the burglar falling off the roof,....). Some require neglience (i.e. you left stuff on the stairs, your stairs aren't up to code a), some are results of your actions (i.e. you give you guests a beer and that is ruled to impaired his judgement), and some are just because it happened on your property.  None of this stuff is a big deal. You just make sure your homeowners policey has a good amount of liability and go on with your life.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post



 

No, I am not saying the insurance would change the liability. But I would be interested in seeing the parts of law that would, by default, make me responsible for my guests injuries if they would fall down my front stairs.

 

addition: after reading more about "tort law", I find best practice to get most comprehensive umbrella insurance and sue the rest. If living in US, that is. I lived, but only for a year, not a bad year at all, but nobody luckily fell down my stairs. c3_clap.gif



 

post #83 of 108

I agree that is BS when they do that. I tend to cut them anyway. One thing I will say is if you hit the house it is your fault and you should cover the damage.

post #84 of 108

Houses Next to Course

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLOG4 View Post

GHALFAIRE-  Let's say this house that sits on the dogleg is yours....You have a big party at your house celebrating your new found ability to read...Are you going to allow your guests in your back yard that gets pelted by golfballs?  You probably would. And you would argue that the golfer that struck that shot and killed the pigs friend was a callous uncaring person. All for a potential saved shot.  And what should the friends of the pig think as to their knowledge that 42 balls hit this house in the past year?   Did you honor your guests with your concern for their safety?  The damage that a golfball can do is lethal.  At no time have I not depicted that.  You want people to have your compassion, you want people to share your hope for humanity. And yet you have the audacity to say teach pigs to read without having any intellectual understanding to the subject, oh but you have a thought.  Only a complete moron would have bought a house that was in the KILL ZONE on a golf course. The law does hold people responsible for their actions.  In this case it is the people that willfully put a house in a spot that knowingly would be hit by golfballs or willfully designed a hole that put this preexisting house in the field of play. Without attempting to protect this house with lots of trees or fences or nets. Those people are not the golfer. 

 

Chances are, my party will be at night, when nobody is pelting balls at my house. I have friends and a sister who own homes on Golf Courses. In all cases, they are required to have special insurance (a few dollars a month), or cover the cost of windows themselves. They, in all cases, had this explained to them before buying the home.

 

The homeowner however, does have options. One in a clear, very strong, and practically invisible filament netting that is strung from poles, and extends to the roof. It was fairly expensive, and they have to get it replaced every 3 years (when the warrantee ont he product runs out) to keep it up to date. My sister and her husband chose this, as being able to take their son outside to play without being horrified of him dying is priceless. Ball comes down, bounces, and rolls off back onto the course.

 

Another friend has Shatter proof glass, and a backyard eclosed with a huge see through tent. Neither of them have had any problems at all. But yes, in Canada at least, it is the homeowners responsibility when buying a home on a golf course, not the golfers. Right or wrong is irrelevant, there is law. And of couyrse, medical care is free, so you can't really sue for that. But I think the filament my sister and her husband have is by far the best option. You dont even really notice its there, unless you look for it. Its like an oversized fishing line, very, very strong.

 

It sure is cool to jump in your own cart and pull out on to the 9th hole to start your round. And when im out there as a guest, I just take their 'guest pass card', hang it on the cart, and I can play all of the free golf I want. And knowing my nephew is safe is great as well. Book a tee time for the 9th hole, usually within minutes of logging on your on the course. My sister hates golf. Her husband and I always have matches when im there, but that isnt often enough.

post #85 of 108

Anyone who thinks people who live on golf courses "have it coming" if a golf ball damages their home need to rethink .  I live on a street, am I therefore responsible if a driver runs his/her car into my home?   Yep, I can expect a broken window, dings in my house...I do live here.  That does not negate golfer's responsibity, nor the golf course who is pushing alcohol in their beer carts.

 

People need to take responsibility for their actions.  You break a window or injure someone while golfing, man up.   We duly pay our taxes to live here, which probably benefits your kids' education.

 

BTW -- we have had incidents where RESPONSIBLE golfers have owned up to the damage they cause.  There are many golfers out there who do take responsiblity. 

post #86 of 108

An important note -- when you sign in for golfing (at least here in WA state) you sign a waiver that says you are responsible for any damage you cause while golfing.

post #87 of 108

I don't think I like Finland. 

post #88 of 108

Perhaps you should read the whole thread before commenting.

post #89 of 108

has anyone here personally, or know of anyone who's had to pay restitution from damaging a home while playing golf ? 

post #90 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilsonWedgeMan View Post

has anyone here personally, or know of anyone who's had to pay restitution from damaging a home while playing golf ? 

No but I do have a neighbor across the street that sued the course, the HOA and the golfer (a john doe I suspect)  for damage to their solar energy set up & tile roof.  But there was a a negotiated settlement so liability was never publicly settled. Part of the settlement was that the settlement was sealed so I guess we'll never know exactly what the damages were or who paid.  But in any case there was a settlement so someone must have decided at least partial liability in this specific case but I don't know all the details. 

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