Are Golf Course Owners Responsible for Excessive Golf Ball Damage From the Driving Range?

[David in FL]

10 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Talk to a lawyer. If the golf course is aware that golf balls are consistently causing property damage, and it happens pretty often, there's a good chance the golf course would be liable for the damage. If nothing else, a lawyer can probably send a nasty, threatening letter that will get the golf course's attention more than you have. 

Since you are in California, which has tons of laws, it is possible there is a law that might apply to the situation. The lawyer would be able to find out. 

FWIW, there's a country club near me that has a small range with houses at the back of it. It has restricted flight golf balls, a net, and fines anybody who hits a ball over the net. Point being, there are ways to tackle this, and it's pretty awful that the course won't do anything. 

Good grief.  Why should the course, that was there YEARS before the condos have to spend money because someone was stupid enough to build in what was clearly a bad spot.

If the owners want a net, let them put one up.  Preferably at the expense of the knucklehead builder...

[DeadMan]

25 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Good grief.  Why should the course, that was there YEARS before the condos have to spend money because someone was stupid enough to build in what was clearly a bad spot.

If the owners want a net, let them put one up.  Preferably at the expense of the knucklehead builder...

Death, taxes, @David in FL recommending a chipper, and @David in FL being annoyed at how the law handles responsibility! 😛

But seriously, yeah, the builder may have been an idiot. Building something concrete 30 yards from the end of a driving range is definitely stupid. On the other hand, maybe the driving range wasn't there when the condos were built. Or maybe the range used restricted balls at that point. Etc. Since it's now nearly 15 years since the condos were built, there's probably not a lot you can get the builder to do. The golf course is the best entity to fix this right now.

And, really, the question is: what's the best way to address this specific situation. The question isn't who's responsible, either morally or legally. The question isn't whether the golf course has legal liability for a ball that injures someone or causes property damage (this is actually an interesting question, but it's really outside of what @patriciawelch is asking here).

[Double Mocha Man]

Then again, all those stray golf balls have been landing on private property, even before the houses were built.

[TRUCKER]

There's a course I've been to that had houses at about a 45 deg. angle to the right of the driving range. There was a sign that read, "No drivers, irons only. If you hit your ball and it strikes a home you are fully liable." That course also had a hole that was lined with homes on the left side. There were 4 houses along that fairway that looked like they were in Baghdad, and had been riddled with a machine gun. There were no signs warning about hitting those homes, and being held liable.

[David in FL]

39 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Death, taxes, @David in FL recommending a chipper, and @David in FL being annoyed at how the law handles responsibility! 😛

 

True dat!   
 

Though honestly, it’s less about how the law handles it, but more how so many individuals refuse to accept it.

Edited December 23, 2019 by David in FL

[DeadMan]

37 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Though honestly, it’s less about how the law handles it, but more how so many individuals refuse to accept it.

The problem with this thinking is that it's mostly up to your insurance company on who gets ultimate responsibility. Part of basically every insurance product is the right for the insurance company to sue someone else, in your name, for losses someone else caused.

Just a hypothetical for you. Let's say you were in an accident that got a $1M medical bill that your insurance company paid. Even if you thought you were responsible for the accident, the insurance company has the right to go after someone else for the accident. It does not matter how strongly you feel about it; the insurance company has the absolute right to do it.

So, a lot of times this stuff is really just insurance companies figuring out how to allocate losses between themselves.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, David in FL said:

Good grief.  Why should the course, that was there YEARS before the condos have to spend money because someone was stupid enough to build in what was clearly a bad spot.

If the owners want a net, let them put one up.  Preferably at the expense of the knucklehead builder...

Okay, so imagine 20 years ago a guy creates a driving range in the middle of nowhere on a narrow strip of land he owns, and because he can just pick the balls from the property he doesn't own, he doesn't put up a net.

Then five years along, someone buys and develops all that property.

Should that property simply go undeveloped because golfers hook or slice balls off the guy's property, or should he be required to keep his stuff (his golf balls) on his property and from damaging the property of others?

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Okay, so imagine 20 years ago a guy creates a driving range in the middle of nowhere on a narrow strip of land he owns, and because he can just pick the balls from the property he doesn't own, he doesn't put up a net.

Then five years along, someone buys and develops all that property.

Should that property simply go undeveloped because golfers hook or slice balls off the guy's property, or should he be required to keep his stuff (his golf balls) on his property and from damaging the property of others?

Not necessarily, but anyone choosing to develop the property should be aware of the situation and either plan accordingly, or accept the consequences for their decision.  In this particular situation, the developer was either stupid in not recognizing the situation, or lazy in not addressing it before developing.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

So unless there's a statute of limitations, Patricia should be able to sue the developer.  Funny image:  Developer trying to sell his homes pays golfers to stay off the range while he's showing the houses to prospective buyers.

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Not necessarily, but anyone choosing to develop the property should be aware of the situation and either plan accordingly, or accept the consequences for their decision.

Yeah, that's not how personal responsibility works.

You seem to be confusing "choices" with "rights" and some other things.

It's their right to not have their property infringed upon by an outsider, regardless of who was there first and whether or not the previous owner let the driving range guy trespass or do whatever else before-hand.

If I have an agreement with my neighbor and he lets me take vegetables from his garden whenever I want, that doesn't mean I get to keep taking vegetables when someone else buys the neighbor's house.

[Double Mocha Man]

50 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Not necessarily, but anyone choosing to develop the property should be aware of the situation and either plan accordingly, or accept the consequences for their decision.  In this particular situation, the developer was either stupid in not recognizing the situation, or lazy in not addressing it before developing.

 

Wondering how many construction guys/gals got whacked by errant golf balls while building the homes???  An aside:  I've never heard anyone yell "Fore!" when cranking one off the range...

[jamo]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Not necessarily, but anyone choosing to develop the property should be aware of the situation and either plan accordingly, or accept the consequences for their decision.  In this particular situation, the developer was either stupid in not recognizing the situation, or lazy in not addressing it before developing.

Have the personal responsibility to not fire projectiles into someone else's property. 

[Double Mocha Man]

I hope Patricia sticks around long enough to let us know the final outcome of this case.  We are now personally invested.

[patriciawelch]

21 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I hope Patricia sticks around long enough to let us know the final outcome of this case.  We are now personally invested.

I will keep you posted and greatly appreciate all the input.  💕

[weberd27]

Even though it is probably a pain, I would consider getting legal advice.

Based on the attached article, you may be able to investigate if they are negligently operating their driving range by not preventing the range balls from going beyond the boundaries of the range.

The Golf Ball Hazard

---

Many Floridians enjoy the spaciousness and beauty of golf course views from their homes. Unfortunately, in these Homeowners’ opinion, this serenity is sometimes marred by golfers who seek, errant balls or by the balls...

 

[David in FL]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Yeah, that's not how personal responsibility works.

You seem to be confusing "choices" with "rights" and some other things.

It's their right to not have their property infringed upon by an outsider, regardless of who was there first and whether or not the previous owner let the driving range guy trespass or do whatever else before-hand.

If I have an agreement with my neighbor and he lets me take vegetables from his garden whenever I want, that doesn't mean I get to keep taking vegetables when someone else buys the neighbor's house.

Not necessarily.  You can assume certain risks when you take certain actions.

But again, I’m not talking law.  Simply my personal value system which others may or may not share.

[Carl3]

A couple of thoughts:

It is always good to consider a home inspection before purchasing.

Unless it was a rental property in which the previous never lived, they should have disclosed this issue. 

[Bonvivant]

5 hours ago, David in FL said:

Not necessarily, but anyone choosing to develop the property should be aware of the situation and either plan accordingly, or accept the consequences for their decision.  In this particular situation, the developer was either stupid in not recognizing the situation, or lazy in not addressing it before developing.

 

I think you are in the wrong here. The owner of the driving range has the obligation to keep his activities on his own land, whether that be by a net, or moving the range to a different location on his property. This is especially important because the activities can be harmful to person or property.

 

On 12/22/2019 at 7:28 PM, Buckeyebowman said:

My thoughts exactly. Reminds me of people who buy a house close to the airport, or a railroad line, and complain about the noise! 

The difference is that the airport and rail-line don't cause direct damage to property or person. Not a good parallel at all