Houses Next to Course

[FLOG4]

With all due respect....Comparing Athletes charging the stands and Dog Bites to striking a Golf Shot is ridiculous....You should know better.  Assumption of Risk...If you have a house on a dogleg where the house is prominantly in the potential field of play....You[homeowner] have assumed the Risk of what could happen as any reasonable person would conclude that this presents a potentially dangerous situation. Now if worst case scenario happens the court system has predominantly looked at the golf course owner as the potential lead defendant.  The reasonable person analysis prevails predominantly. Case closed.

Quote a specific court case contrary to above and I'll be highly impressed. Terms: House on a dogleg that is imminently in play[the original post]

[Yukari]

Regardless of whether the home owner assumed the risk of being hit into, if a golfer AIM towards the house to cut the corner, the golfer maybe liable for being negligent or for recklessness.

[x129]

As the golfer haven't you assumed the risk of paying for a broken window by playing that course? If you don't like the course, play another one.  Wouldn't  a reasonable person (i.e. not a golfer:) concluded that aiming at a house is poor idea? We are not talking golf course liability. We are talking golfer liability. They are two different things. Certain states have said the golfers are not responsible. Others have said they are.

Personally I would never live on the golf course. It isn't the stray balls. Its all the *******s walking through my backyard.......

Originally Posted by FLOG4

With all due respect....Comparing Athletes charging the stands and Dog Bites to striking a Golf Shot is ridiculous....You should know better.  Assumption of Risk...If you have a house on a dogleg where the house is prominantly in the potential field of play....You[homeowner] have assumed the Risk of what could happen as any reasonable person would conclude that this presents a potentially dangerous situation. Now if worst case scenario happens the court system has predominantly looked at the golf course owner as the potential lead defendant.  The reasonable person analysis prevails predominantly. Case closed.

Quote a specific court case contrary to above and I'll be highly impressed. Terms: House on a dogleg that is imminently in play[the original post]

[funkyfred72]

Robert A Clifford - Chicago Lawyer

"Individual golfers generally do not face liability for wild shots because it is well recognized that they cannot exercise precise control over any given swing, as many of us well know. "

[funkyfred72]

Originally Posted by Yukari

Regardless of whether the home owner assumed the risk of being hit into, if a golfer AIM towards the house to cut the corner, the golfer maybe liable for being negligent or for recklessness.

My guess it would be hard to prove a golfer was aiming at a house, unless someone from his group ratted him out.

[FLOG4]

He's aiming at the green.  The house is just an incidental obstruction. It is not reckless to aim at the intended target.  The road hole of St Andrews is a prime example.  The hotel is on the edge of play. Balls bounce off it every day. The prevailing wind also comes across the hole as to make you aim at the hotel. I'm still waiting for anyone to offer up case law rather than their uninformed opinion on this...........sidebar....My first time playing the road hole I had been hitting a lazy hook all day.  The caddie says hit it over the lion, I say that's right at the corner of the hotel....I proceed to hit my best drive of the day. It goes dead straight. I am playing with a buddie and our two other buddies are in their hotel room on the 3rd floor on the corner right where my ball is heading....Our buddie has his camcorder pointing at us as my ball is locked on him...he dives for cover as my ball swats the roof just above the window.  I teed up another made par with it for 6 on card. Hours later as our buds are now playing and we walk in with them the last few holes we come to 17. The guy who was workin the camcorder swats a mighty drive right on the edge of the hotel. As we come around the corner a woman advises me that the ball hit right on top of the glass roof and is in the bushes. We go to dinner that night.  We go to that restaurant and sit right under where that ball hit. We didn't pick the table, that's where they placed us.  I point up at the glass[reinforced] and see a splatter pattern and say hey Jim that's where your ball hit....Just had to share that.

[ghalfaire]

That's not so.  I think "ordinary care" requires you to not make a shot that has a reasonable probability of endangering people or property.  If you're a scratch golfer and can carry the dog leg  over the house 19 times out of 20 OK.  If you're a 25 handicap and it is likely outcome if you try to carry the dog leg is that you'll hit the house, then you are liable for the damage and unless you have good homeowner's insurance, better consider laying up.   But you cannot hit a shot that you know has a reasonable probability of damaging someone or property without liability for the outcome.  So if you're a 25 handicap and smart you'll lay up as it is reckless to attempt a shot that is low probability if it can damage someone or their property.

As for the "road hole", well all I can say is;  USA law doesn't apply in Scotland and those guy are really good.  Put the usually USA public links Saturday crowd on that tee and probably the hotel would move or build a fence to deflect/stop errant shots  like you see on a lot of public course in America.

While it is true that the homeowner does assume some liability for damages by being close to a golf course, so does the golfer assume responsibility for taking "ordinary care" to not do damage to homes surrounding the course.  After all you knew the course had homes around it when you chose to play there.

For full disclosure I do own a home on a golf course.  But unlike the one on the dog leg, being a golfer myself, I used some common sense in selecting the site.  It is between a green and the next tee box and you have to be pretty lousy golfer to hit my house on accident.  In 10 years I maybe have collected a dozen balls from the back yard.  None were PRO V1.

Originally Posted by FLOG4

He's aiming at the green.  The house is just an incidental obstruction. It is not reckless to aim at the intended target.  The road hole of St Andrews is a prime example.  The hotel is on the edge of play.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by FLOG4

He's aiming at the green.  The house is just an incidental obstruction. It is not reckless to aim at the intended target.

It clearly is reckless if there is a fair chance that you might hit the house.  It is reckless if the reasonable shot is to play the hole as it is designed and play to the corner of the dogleg.  Just because you want to play to cut the dogleg, that doesn't make it a reasonable act if there is a high risk of property damage or personal injury.  You'd have a tough time winning that case in court.

[trackster]

I'll agree with the OP.  This sounds bull to me.  Why would anyone build a house on a golf course and then complain that people are playing golf.  Whether you take this little cut or not you still have a chance of hitting this house.  You could never prove the line that this person was taking when he was aiming.

This would be like building a house in the middle of a shooting range and then complaining that people were shooting around your house.  I'm more accurate with my rifle then I am my driver.

Bottom line houses don't belong near a golf course.  The person hitting shouldn't be responsible, the person owning the house shouldn't be responsible, the dumb@$$ course owner should take full responsibility for letting someone build a house near the course.

[x129]

I doubt you will come up with a lot court cases that say the golfer isn't liable either. No one is hiring lawyers and going to court over 1k windows. Suing the club is different (much deeper pockets) and but the case against them is a lot different. There are also a ton of cases about hitting other golfers but there are very few about hitting houses.

I wonder how many people who don't think a golfer is responsible for breaking a window would feel differently if when driving to the course in there car, a ball broke their window and caused them to hit a tree totaling their car.  Would they be ok paying for all the damages out of their own pocket?

Originally Posted by FLOG4

Quote a specific court case contrary to above and I'll be highly impressed. Terms: House on a dogleg that is imminently in play[the original post]

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It clearly is reckless if there is a fair chance that you might hit the house.  It is reckless if the reasonable shot is to play the hole as it is designed and play to the corner of the dogleg.  Just because you want to play to cut the dogleg, that doesn't make it a reasonable act if there is a high risk of property damage or personal injury.  You'd have a tough time winning that case in court.

I agree. I played a course years ago where there was a dogleg par 5 that actually went around the green of the par 3 hole played immediately after it. You got all these mid handicap heroes trying to cut the corner and their balls used to go right on the par 3 green while people were putting even though there was a net and plenty of trees. They would always be like "sorry, I was trying to cut the corner" as they flubbed their next shots trying to get back to the fairway. Some idiots actually tried to play shots from the green. Finally, the course had had enough and put up a sign at the tee box stating that anyone caught attempting to drive over the dogleg would expelled from the course.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Topper

The following is interesting from Arizona and Colorado:

Arizona Real Estate Law

by Christopher A. Combs

The following is for informational purposes only and is not intended as definitive legal or tax advice. You should not act upon this information without seeking independent legal counsel. If you desire legal, tax or other professional advice, please contact your attorney, tax advisor or other professional consultant.

Golfers not Liable for Personal or Property Damage Caused to Golf Course Residents

Question: In a recent column you stated that a golfer generally has no liability for personal injury or property damage to a homeowner who lives on a golf course. I was surprised by your statement as a golfer, like any other person, should be responsible for his actions. In the basic law classes that I have taken I was taught that the person who did the damage is responsible to the injured party. Under your logic, a dog owner is not responsible for his dog biting an individual because the individual should know that dogs bite. Taken to the extreme, if you attend a Phoenix Suns game and are attacked in the stands by one of the players, the player has no liability because you now know from watching NBA basketball on T.V. that you can be attacked in the stands by a player. Is there a statute that states that golfers, unlike everybody else, are not responsible for their actions?

Answer: There are no applicable statues, and therefore common law, i.e., judicial decisions, controls. Under common law a home built on a golf course “comes to the danger”, and therefore only under extreme circumstances is a golfer liable for property damage to the home, such as a broken window. Similarly, if you park your car next to a baseball field, a baseball team generally has no liability if your car is dented by a foul ball. In regard to personal injury, a golfer generally has no liability for any personal injury caused to the homeowner. In certain circumstance, however, there may be liability for personal injury. For example, if the golfer sees the homeowner sitting by the swimming pool, and the homeowner is within the golfer’s “zone of danger,” the golfer would have an obligation to shout “Fore” before striking the golf ball.

Phoenix attorney Christopher A. Combs is a partner with the firm of Combs Law Group, P.C. Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2005, all rights reserved.

What a load of crap!!! So the homeowner should know golf terms in order to protect himself!???!? Yeah yeah and pigs can fly....

And that thing about baseball:

'Similarly, if you park your car next to a baseball field, a baseball team generally has no liability if your car is dented by a foul ball.'

Well not of course the team but the baseball field/stadium, if the car is parked on a legimite place!!!!

No wonder there are so many lawyers in USA.... jesus....

[Grumpter]

Live next to a golf course. Have had windows broken on the house/cars and lots of golf ball dings on cars. If we catch the golfer we try to get them to pay if not the course has covered the costs. Since Tiger Woods came on the scene the number of golf balls that come onto the property has certainly gone up but we haven't had any broken windows in a long time.

Once had a golfer take out 2 car windows with 1 shot. Estimate to replace came in at over $1500. Nice guy that I am (??) I went to the Junk Yard and found replacement glass and it only cost the guy like $100 or something. The worst are dings on cars as by the time you actually find them it's to determine if it actually came from the course or not.

[mdl]

Obviously different states have different laws, and no ruling is ever universal, as the specific situations are always different, but I'm glad to see that in general, if you're exercising "ordinary care", you're not responsible for hitting a poor shot and causing damage.

I have more sympathy for a pedestrian or driver on a road that's poorly shielded by the course design or netting or whatever, but I have zero sympathy for homeowners who buy a house 30' from rough.  If you buy a home where the poorest drive of the round even from a solid golfer in the 10-15 HC range could easily be a not epically bad push fade that damages your house, then whatever the law says it seems to me you obviously assumed the risk of damage to your home in buying a house 30' from the edge of a fairway.  I'm glad that seems to be the general rule in most states.

[Grumpter]

Interesting thoughts mdl. I measured using google earth and it shows the house is 45 yards from the center of the green and 25 yards from the edge of the course. We have found quite a few balls as far away as 80+ yards from the edge of the course. I'm not real happy when I play a course where the houses are right up against the edge of the course (less than 10-15 yards) but at what distance is it considered an unreasonable shot?

[funkyfred72]

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.

Originally Posted by x129

I doubt you will come up with a lot court cases that say the golfer isn't liable either. No one is hiring lawyers and going to court over 1k windows. Suing the club is different (much deeper pockets) and but the case against them is a lot different. There are also a ton of cases about hitting other golfers but there are very few about hitting houses.

I wonder how many people who don't think a golfer is responsible for breaking a window would feel differently if when driving to the course in there car, a ball broke their window and caused them to hit a tree totaling their car.  Would they be ok paying for all the damages out of their own pocket?

[funkyfred72]

A lot of poeple are talking about drivers.  I've seen people shank wedges towards homes before.  Now that is and ugly sight to see.  HA!

Originally Posted by mdl

Obviously different states have different laws, and no ruling is ever universal, as the specific situations are always different, but I'm glad to see that in general, if you're exercising "ordinary care", you're not responsible for hitting a poor shot and causing damage.

I have more sympathy for a pedestrian or driver on a road that's poorly shielded by the course design or netting or whatever, but I have zero sympathy for homeowners who buy a house 30' from rough.  If you buy a home where the poorest drive of the round even from a solid golfer in the 10-15 HC range could easily be a not epically bad push fade that damages your house, then whatever the law says it seems to me you obviously assumed the risk of damage to your home in buying a house 30' from the edge of a fairway.  I'm glad that seems to be the general rule in most states.

[ghalfaire]

I too measured the distance from my home (nearest point) to the center of the green.  It is just over 62 yards (per Google) and is about 45 degrees off line.  Also the course is depressed some (10 feet maybe) so it plays longer than the 62 yards.  You have to hit a pretty poor shot to put one in my back yard.  I wouldn't sue over  window or tile or stucco.  But I don't think it unreasonable for golfers to have some consideration of the home owners around the course.  As earlier posted there is no specific law in AZ dealing with liability of golfer Vs homeowners.  So it is just the common law with respect to liability and that says that the golfer must show "ordinary care" to not damage property (regardless if you're on a golf course or driving your car).  The homeowner assumes the same liability as the golfer does,  e.g. if you get hit by a golfer who slices one over tree into your fairway and hits you, well your tough luck; but if you get hit by the foursome behind you while you're lining up you second shot they didn't show ordinary caution and you got a case.  Same is true for the homeowner if you attempt to send one over his house and it doesn't make it, he has a case, but if you're just a lousy golfer  and just slice one through the plate glass window, too bad for the homeowner.  But I don't know anyone dumb enough to hire a lawyer for a $1K window.

I thought I'd add something to further the idea the homeowner does not assume all liability no matter what.  A few years back one of our homeowners sued the golf course for a plate glass window resulting from a "night golf" tournament.  This tournament was played at night with "glow balls".  The course doesn't have lights but temporary lights were set up at the greens and tees, but no where else.  Well as it usually works there was a idiot golfing that night that tried to drive a 280 yard par 4 that has a dog leg right on it.  His ball didn't make it to the green but ended up in the home on the corner's front room (sounds like the OP's case).  Quite a shock to the homeowner.  Of course he couldn't find the culprit so he sued the course for having such a tournament on a tight course at night without adequate lighting.  Basically his argument was that the course didn't show ordinary care and having a broken window was a probable outcome of such an event.  Well once he hired the lawyer the course settled out of court for the cost of repair and lawyer fees.  So I can't say how it would have turned out in court but apparently the legal advice the course management got was to settle, maybe because it was cheaper (it was a big picture window so it wasn't too cheap) but maybe because they didn't want to chance setting a precedent either.