Club Pro Out of Line???

[senorchipotle]

My friends did accept responsibility and gave the man their information. The debate is whether the club pro should have handled it differently and directed the man to the club business manager instead of sending an angry non member onto the course with a golf cart to chase the "offending" party down. If my friends had not been the civil kind, it could have gotten ugly. The overriding sentiment on the 19th hold is that unless you are intentionally trying to hit the ball at a car, house, person, etc that no liability exist. They did the civil thing and gave up their info. but it just doesn't feel right.

lol... so, if i accidentally kill some people while testing out my shiny new grenade launcher, i'm not responsible? unless i was targeting them specifically, of course. right? horrible things have been done with the best of intentions.

[Titleist_ProV1x]

They both teed off and sent slices into the roadway. They teed up their 2nd ball and proceeded down the fairway not knowing that something was brewing.

Now let's think about this for one sec, ok? How many times have you sliced a ball off the tee and not watched where the hell it went? especially when YOU know there is a road with cars in the direction of your slice?, do you say to yourself "ahhh, F---K it! and tee up another with no concern" or do you say "Damn!, I hope that doesn't hit a car!!!" ....... uh huh, chance are it's the 2nd thought, so the actions of the pro are justified IMO

[nike_golf]

For someone who said the Pro doesn't/shouldn't get in the middle of this is wrong, IMO. The pro is an employee of the golf course and one of his jobs is to address concerns/issues/problems of "his" golfers and whatever may occur while they play. Something like this would qualify under that line of thinking.

As for how it was handled. I disagree w/ the pro and anyone who says it was handled correctly.

If the pro decided it was necessary for a face to face meeting w/ whoever he thought was responsible, the pro himself should have personally went and tracked down the "offenders" and brought them back for a meeting w/ the motorist.

If the club has insurance and the pro is familiar (which he should be) w/ what transpires in a case such as a ball hitting a vehicle, I would think that NO face to face meeting would be necessary and the pro would explain to the motorist that the course would take care of him and his vehicle.

In those scenerios, you don't have a motorist who just had his vehicle hit, tracking down golfers who he knows did it and the possible "unfortunate" possibility of a bad situation. Rather, in both scenerios, you have the motorist getting his vehicle fixed, the pro acting in a professional manner and no hard feelings between anyone.

[iacas]

Why is the golfer responsible? I see it like a baseball game or something. They tell you to watch out for flying balls.

I already answered that question. Baseball tickets come with the assumption of risk, as does being on a golf course as a paying customer. A driver on a road nearby takes on no such assumption of risk.

It comes with the territory of driving on a road right along a golf course.

No, it doesn't.

Say I'm a golfer who typically hits the driver well, but my misses tend to be pushed right. It's not my problem that they built a course with a road on the right side of the hole?

Yes, it is.

Gee whiz, guys. Golf is a game of integrity and personal responsibility, and the lack of it shown here is appalling. If you can't control your golf ball to the point where you risk hitting a ball into the road, practice until you can and hit a 7-iron off the tee until then.

Hitting a car and damaging it is basically the same thing as hitting a course-bordering house and smashing a window or hitting an occupant of the house.

No it's not. Again, if you buy a house near a golf course you assume a certain level of risk (unless you can prove that a golfer intentionally hit his ball at your big bay window or something). This has been covered many times on the forum.

Additionally, "liability insurance" doesn't always cover things that occur OFF the property. I know a club that has liability insurance for accidents which occur on club property, but a golfer hitting a passing car on a public road doesn't qualify. It's _always_ the golfer's responsibility. If the club has a policy of handling those types of things, great - but the property owner wouldn't sue the golf course, he'd sue the individual. - The club pro should have sent someone to retrieve the golfers. But maybe there was nobody else there - we don't know. - The club - if this hole is as bad as it possibly sounds - should put up a barrier to protect the property (and lives) of motorists AND the finances of its members. Neither of those change the fact that the golfer is at fault.

[misty_mountainhop]

I haven't seen it posted but just because someone says their car's been hit by a golf ball doesn't make it so.

As for the pro. Berk. There are a number of ways to handle the situation but the way he chose was not amongst the better ones.

[Grahaman]

...and people wonder why there is a stereotype of private country club golfers being *^seholes....

Based upon your reply, I can imagine you are one of the unwashed, jean shorts, wifebeater t shirt, and a cooler of beer types who roam the course flaunting your good ole boy attitude no matter who it disrupts.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If a club has insurance to handle these type of situations, then the pro shoudl have "protected" the members and sent the offended party to the club business manager.

[sean_miller]

I haven't seen it posted but just because someone says their car's been hit by a golf ball doesn't make it so.

The term "allegedly" was used in post #37 - it's in a bold font and everything.

[jonnythan]

Neither of those change the fact that the golfer is at fault.

I agree that the golfer was at fault, but disagree that the club pro acted in any way appropriately or responsibly.

[Shorty]

Based upon your reply, I can imagine you are one of the unwashed, jean shorts, wifebeater t shirt, and a cooler of beer types who roam the course flaunting your good ole boy attitude no matter who it disrupts.

You think that becuase I have written that the club pro should NOT have "shrugged his shoulders" and acted dumb, pretending that he couldn't help the motorist that the above applies?

You think that because I have stated that members should not treat the pro like a servant that the above applies? I have already said that the club pro should NOT have given the motorist a cart. Clubs do not have the kind of insurance that absolves players from their legal responsibilities. Your logic is ridiculously flawed.

[Greg]

I think if something like that happened to MY CAR, being a golfer myself i would simply go to my insurance and simply tell them something else happened and not worry about trying to get my deductible back. I would be more inclined to think that the golfer(with weapons in close proximity) would be the one with the upper hand. I usually wont tee off on a hole near a road if a car is approaching. I actually hit a ball on the roof of a house on a course near me, a par 4 right next to the entrance road and I sliced it and hit it across the road on their roof. Needless to say I didnt go get it. But if there had been a car parked there, yes I would have hit it. I dont think any golf hole should be near a road but sometimes space limitations require it. I havent hit any shots that bad for a long time so hoping it wont matter. Likewise, if the parking lot is too close to any of the greens, ill park a bit further back as well, though that would be on course property and thats a different matter if a car gets hit. Never know when someone is going to skull one 50 yards over the green.

[Crey23]

Buy this thread has stirred nothing but good sentiments towards all ... lol

[golfro]

I think if something like that happened to MY CAR, being a golfer myself i would simply go to my insurance and simply tell them something else happened and not worry about trying to get my deductible back.

Interesting. If someone cracked a ball and hit my brand new Audi, then someone better be paying for the $500 deductible.

[PS90]

One thing that I would be worried about is the apparent "circumstantial evidence" present. The OP never really mentions whether the Pro or the couple playing the course actually SAW that the car was hit by their ball or not.

If the roadway is clearly visible from the clubhouse (or range, or wherever the Pro was at the time), then the driver's accusation may have some teeth.

But if, like every course I have ever played, it is very difficult to see the road (or most other out-of-bounds) on this particular course - due to the central location of the pro shop and/or the hedge obstructing the pro's view, then the Pro should be liable for assuming the couple hit the car.

In other words, if the Pro just assumed that those players hit the car because they were on that hole about the time that the driver claimed his car was hit (whether it actually was them or not), then the Pro is using circumstantial evidence at best, and the Pro is guilty of a false accusation.

Also, whether the course was a private club or not, is not an issue - even a public course is privately managed, and has the right to deny anyone entrance to the course for unfounded reasons (like hunting down an alleged car-damager).

[clam fist]

He should have taken the man's info and given it you after your round.

[shaun]

The driver does not have to pay to fix his car.

The damage was caused by the negligence of either, or both, the golfer or the club. In this situation, assuming the golfer behaved relatively normally, the club will generally be liable for its failure to erect an adequate security barrier to protect drivers on the nearby road from errant golf shots. The golfer's liability may be more complicated. He would certainly owe a duty of care to passing motorists, but whether that duty was breached in a particular instance would depend very heavily on the circumstances. For example, he would not be liable for the mere accidental playing of a poor shot. But he may well be liable if, as a right-handed golfer, he knew that his usual shot was an uncommonly wicked slice, but nonetheless proceeded to aim his tee shot down the right side of the fairway in the vicinity of a road. His knowledge about the presence or absence of any safety barrier on that side of the course would also be relevant.

[kevin.chan]

Wrong.

In some countries , you do buy some insurance when you buy the golf game , besides covering the liabilities it also award you when you hit Hole In One.

[Crey23]

In some countries , you do buy some insurance when you buy the golf game , besides covering the liabilities it also award you when you hit Hole In One.

Nice!!!! But I have a better chance of paying off liability than scoring that elusive ace!!! lol

[misty_mountainhop]

The term "allegedly" was used in post #37 - it's in a bold font and everything.

Thanks for the sarcastic response. I refer you to my "I haven't seen it but...". Try reading next time; I might even do likewise.