Houses Next to Course

[jamo]

There's no sense in trying to pick out an individual post and quoting it, so I'll simply share my thoughts as they currently stand. If I own a house, on a piece of property, that's my house, and my land. No matter where my house is built, I shouldn't expect any sort of projectile being launched at my house, my property (including a 100 mph sphere of rubber). If somehow some sort of projectile does hit my house, I should be compensated for the damage that a neighbor has incurred on my house. Whether I live next to a golf course, a baseball diamond, a shooting range, or a soccer field. That seems like common sense to me. If a stranger causes damage to my property, they (or the owner of the land they are on) should be liable. Why should I have to pay for damage someone else does to my property, from someone else's property? It shouldn't even matter what was built first. If my neighbor opens a driving range in his backyard, should that be any different than if I move in next to a driving range? Why? The people the occupy that adjacent property are still damaging my own. Their right to launch golf balls should end with my right to not have broken windows, or smashed doors, or a golf ball in my head. Past that, I don't really have an opinion as to whether the player or the club should be liable. Either way though, wouldn't you feel a just a little bit guilty if you smashed someone's window and expected them to pay for it? I mean, c'mon. Is the goal in life really to get away with everything? Take some responsibility for your mistakes. Like I said, that's where my current stance resides. It's by no means set in stone.

[newtogolf]

Well stated, and logical, but as someone that owned on home on a golf course in Virginia, it's incorrect.  Buying a house on a golf course is like buying a house in a flood zone, the home owner assumes the risk.  The only time you could pursue the golfer is if you had video or witnesses that can testify the golfer aimed at the house with the intent to do damage.  I'll look for the waiver we had to sign, and post it. I had both my corporate and personal attorney review it, and they said it was legal and enforceable.

Originally Posted by jamo

There's no sense in trying to pick out an individual post and quoting it, so I'll simply share my thoughts as they currently stand. If I own a house, on a piece of property, that's my house, and my land. No matter where my house is built, I shouldn't expect any sort of projectile being launched at my house, my property (including a 100 mph sphere of rubber).

If somehow some sort of projectile does hit my house, I should be compensated for the damage that a neighbor has incurred on my house. Whether I live next to a golf course, a baseball diamond, a shooting range, or a soccer field.

That seems like common sense to me. If a stranger causes damage to my property, they (or the owner of the land they are on) should be liable. Why should I have to pay for damage someone else does to my property, from someone else's property? It shouldn't even matter what was built first. If my neighbor opens a driving range in his backyard, should that be any different than if I move in next to a driving range? Why? The people the occupy that adjacent property are still damaging my own.

Their right to launch golf balls should end with my right to not have broken windows, or smashed doors, or a golf ball in my head.

Past that, I don't really have an opinion as to whether the player or the club should be liable. Either way though, wouldn't you feel a just a little bit guilty if you smashed someone's window and expected them to pay for it? I mean, c'mon. Is the goal in life really to get away with everything? Take some responsibility for your mistakes.

Like I said, that's where my current stance resides. It's by no means set in stone.

[FLOG4]

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.

[x129]

Again property damage and bodily injury are two different cases. Yes hitting a house is an accident. Doesn't mean there isn't liability.

It is easy to say houses don't belong near golf courses. It is also easy to say that why don't you stop playing those courses if you don't like them and don't want the liability for hitting houses? Depending on where you live, there might not be a lot of courses you could play as most courses in the past 30 years have an associated development. Without the housing development many courses wouldn't have been built.

Originally Posted by trackster

I'm sorry but this is just stupid.  If a baseball player hits a home run and it hits a fan in the head is the baseball player at fault?  This is the exact same thing.  By building a house on a golf course you are taking the chance that you might get hit.  If you golf you are taking the chance that you might be hit.  If you walk by a golf course you are taking a chance that you might get hit.

Who every compared this to running over a jogger with a car needs help (with all do respect, watch Talledega Nights if i say "With all do respect" it means that you can say what ever you want ;)).  You have full control over your car (in most cases), but you have very limited control over where your golf ball lands.  It's not disrespecting some one if you hit their house, if it is near the course, it is an ACCIDENT.  I hit trees all the time golfing, a nature lover could find this to be an injustice, but I don't see you people supporting their cause.

Again bottom line Houses Don't belong near a golf course.

[trackster]

If you mean to do something or it is an accident and the outcome is the same is the offense any less.  Say Golfer A tries to cut the dogleg and ends up hitting the house, Golfer B sees this decides to not play the dogleg but ends up shanking one into the house.  Both golfers Had no intention of hitting the house, but both ended up hitting the house.  Is one golfer at more of a Fault then the other?

It comes down to what ever was there first.  If the house was there first then the golf course should be responsible, if the golf course was there first then the house owner should take responsibility.

In my opinion if you build a house next to a baseball diamond or a golf course you are asking for trouble.

And lastly I don't like when peoples response is "If you don't like it don't play the course."  Some of us don't have the luxury of 5 + golf courses in our area.

[newtogolf]

It goes to intent and negligence.  If you take a shot despite knowing the following;

1. You have poor control over where your ball goes and there's a high probability you will hit the house
2. There are alternative shots that would reduce your chances of hitting the house
3. There isn't a pressing reason why you would be forced to take that shot that places the house at greater risk

Then you would be negligent if you took the shot and hit the house.  Now how a homeowner would go about proving that in court is a different story unless you were honest when answering the above questions.  If you were honest you'd lose the case.  You're right in that a homeowner takes some risk in buying a house on a golf course, but you as a golfer should respect their property and not intentionally place it or the occupants in harms way.

Your statement in bold makes no sense, if I buy a house in a high crime neighborhood does that mean someone would be more justified in robbing my house because I knew it was a high crime area when I bought it?

Originally Posted by trackster

If you mean to do something or it is an accident and the outcome is the same is the offense any less.  Say Golfer A tries to cut the dogleg and ends up hitting the house, Golfer B sees this decides to not play the dogleg but ends up shanking one into the house.  Both golfers Had no intention of hitting the house, but both ended up hitting the house.  Is one golfer at more of a Fault then the other?

It comes down to what ever was there first.  If the house was there first then the golf course should be responsible, if the golf course was there first then the house owner should take responsibility.

In my opinion if you build a house next to a baseball diamond or a golf course you are asking for trouble.

And lastly I don't like when peoples response is "If you don't like it don't play the course."  Some of us don't have the luxury of 5 + golf courses in our area.

[trackster]

Haha your reply makes no sense.  I can't rob you on accident.  I can hit a bad golf shot or even a good golf shot and hit you on accident.  Maybe the homeowner should respect the golfers and not build their house in a spot that restricts a playable type of shot.  It's a double edged sword.

[newtogolf]

Your track history of posts on this forum indicate you care little about anyone but yourself.  FYI, homeowners buy lots that the golf course or property owner sells.  You don't just walk up to a golf course, pour a foundation and build your house.  If you want to be annoyed with someone, talk to the course management or developer that approved a lot in that position on the course.

Originally Posted by trackster

Haha your reply makes no sense.  I can't rob you on accident.  I can hit a bad golf shot or even a good golf shot and hit you on accident.  Maybe the homeowner should respect the golfers and not build their house in a spot that restricts a playable type of shot.  It's a double edged sword.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Your track history of posts on this forum indicate you care little about anyone but yourself.  FYI, homeowners buy lots that the golf course or property owner sells.  You don't just walk up to a golf course, pour a foundation and build your house.  If you want to be annoyed with someone, talk to the course management or developer that approved a lot in that position on the course.

And if some one sells you a lot in the middle of an intersection are you still going to take it?  I would say your replies show you care very little about anyone.  The mentality of I am here deal with it.  You can blame anyone you want and in todays society you can sue for just about anything.  But if put your house near a place where golf balls or any projectile are going to be flying then you should accept the risk.

By building your house there you are in turn affecting many people.  A golfer may be extremely nervous thinking "Ok I have a house to that side."  He may aim way left slice across the ball and end up hitting the house on the right.  It's not like you intended to make the golfer nervous, and he didn't intend to hit your house.  But you have just put him in a compromising situation.  If you house wasn't there he wouldn't have to worry and the situation would be avoided.

There are houses Beyond the fences at the local baseball diamonds.  If a kid hits a huge home run and hits these houses should he be responsible for the damages.  I would hope your answer is no.

[newtogolf]

Are you really this dense?  The developer is selling the lots, their job is to sell every lot.  They don't sit you down and show you a map of the development and say, you can buy this lot, but if you do "trackster" might be upset cause you'll mess up the shot he can't hit anyway.   Just because the developer sold a lot and someone bought it doesn't mean you're entitled to take a risky shot that might hit their house when you have alternative shots.  I'm done with the conversation, as others have indicated, you're a bit of a troll.

Originally Posted by trackster

And if some one sells you a lot in the middle of an intersection are you still going to take it?  I would say your replies show you care very little about anyone.  The mentality of I am here deal with it.  You can blame anyone you want and in todays society you can sue for just about anything.  But if put your house near a place where golf balls or any projectile are going to be flying then you should accept the risk.

By building your house there you are in turn affecting many people.  A golfer may be extremely nervous thinking "Ok I have a house to that side."  He may aim way left slice across the ball and end up hitting the house on the right.  It's not like you intended to make the golfer nervous, and he didn't intend to hit your house.  But you have just put him in a compromising situation.  If you house wasn't there he wouldn't have to worry and the situation would be avoided.

There are houses Beyond the fences at the local baseball diamonds.  If a kid hits a huge home run and hits these houses should he be responsible for the damages.  I would hope your answer is no.

[Topper]

Another interesting article.  I've looked at a number of these and laws vary from state to state but it seems that in most cases the homeowner bears the brunt of the responsibility.  Not always...but usually.  This article does stress "buyer beware" recommendations that golf course home buyers should consider when buying.  In the end, it comes down to be a "reasonabley responsible" golfer.  If cutting the dogleg is a shot that you can make "more often than not," then you are probably being reasonable to attempt it. Don't forget to yell FORE! if you mis-hit.

Cover Your Asset!

By Tara Gravel, Senior Editor, GOLF Magazine

Published: May 06, 2008

Wayne Winton has made a lot of new friends since he moved into his Spanish-style home alongside the 13th hole at Marbella Country Club in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., 14 years ago.

He just wishes the employees at his local hardware store weren't among them. Winton knows the staff on a first-name basis because he's replaced 70 windows in his home — at $100 a pop, that's $7,000 — thanks to errant golf balls.

"My wife and I have had so many near misses that we barbecue at night when the golfers have gone home," he says. "We've found balls all around the house. One flew over the house and ricocheted into a room. A two-fer went in one window and out another."

So who should be paying for Wayne's new windows? While the law varies from state to state — and from case to case — it's rarely the offending golfer who is responsible for the damage. If you live on a golf course, you assume risk. But there are several ways you can protect yourself from getting clocked in the pocketbook.

Remember: Right is wrong
"Buyers can get so emotionally charged up about living on a golf course that they don't do the research," says Matt Mardon, an attorney who covers liability issues for the Addison Law Firm in Dallas, Texas. "Before you buy, look at where the house is in relation to the hole. If the home is behind the tee box, it's unlikely to get hit. But it's going to get hit all the time if it's 150 yards out on the right." Why the right? Because most bad golfers are habitual slicers.

Do an impact study
Quiz the developer about the materials used to build your home. Mardon once saw a golf home in Arizona that looked like a firing-range target. "You can't have a plate-glass window next to a course and expect it not to get broken,"he says. "The builder has a duty to use impact-resistant materials."

Get it in writing
Ask the developer or seller to document in writing any issues they've had with errant golf balls. Have an attorney review any clauses that might release the golf club or developer from liability. "In states like Florida, California and New York, it's against public policy to ask someone to waive your negligence. If balls keep raining down, the club has a duty to do something about it," says Dennis Hillier, an attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. "Sometimes it's a case of the tee boxes not being oriented properly, and if the course lines them up it solves the problem."

Check your coverage
Know what your insurance covers, including the deductible for broken windows and liability protection. "The worst that can happen is someone gets hurt," says industry expert Jeanne Salvatore. "But if they sue, you're covered in most instances."

Insurance Basics Visit the Insurance Information Institute's web site to find a list of insurance providers around the U.S., including State Farm, Liberty Mutual, MetLife, Allstate and Nationwide. iii.org .
• What will it cost me? Average coverage is $500 to $600 annually.
• What is covered? Damage to the home and personal belongings, no-fault emergency medical care for injured guests, liability protection from injuries and living expenses after a fire or other disaster. What's the deductible? From $250 to $500 per claim.

[luu5]

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.

[jshots]

I guess it sucks if you damage a house but its my understand that golf courses hardly break even and its the selling of those lots that even keep the place running.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Are you really this dense?  The developer is selling the lots, their job is to sell every lot.  They don't sit you down and show you a map of the development and say, you can buy this lot, but if you do "trackster" might be upset cause you'll mess up the shot he can't hit anyway.   Just because the developer sold a lot and someone bought it doesn't mean you're entitled to take a risky shot that might hit their house when you have alternative shots.  I'm done with the conversation, as others have indicated, you're a bit of a troll.

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 would say that you are the one trolling.  Some one has brought up legal evidence as to the golfer not taking the responsibility in most states and yet you still act like it should 100 percent be there fault.

[newtogolf]

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.  Go back and read my posts, and you'll see that I've stated that as a homeowner on a golf course I was asked to sign a waiver that held the course harmess to any damage done to my house.  I also stated that whether or not the golfer would be responsible has to do with intent and negligence.

Originally Posted by trackster

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 would say that you are the one trolling.  Some one has brought up legal evidence as to the golfer not taking the responsibility in most states and yet you still act like it should 100 percent be there fault.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.  Go back and read my posts, and you'll see that I've stated that as a homeowner on a golf course I was asked to sign a waiver that held the course harmess to any damage done to my house.  I also stated that whether or not the golfer would be responsible has to do with intent and negligence.

Harmless*

I don't think there is ever an intent to hit the house .  And it couldn't really be negligence because any type of shot you take has some potential for hitting a house if it is near the course.  As has been backed up by other people in this thread, the majority of the time the homeowner is the one that has to pay.  Is it right, you don't seem to think so and that is your opinion.

Did you negotiate on that waiver at all, that is pretty cut and dry that you are going to end up paying for everything then.

I think it was you that said that people and property are in different categories of offenses and I'll agree with that.  A ball to the head is a little more serious then a broken window.  But you can get hit on a golf course on accident rather easily.  My course has a lot of shared rough and the closest I have come to getting hit is from a sliced drive from the adjacent hole not some one hitting in to me.  Was there intent to hit me no, was there negligence in hitting a shot into a wide open fairway no, could I have been hurt yes.  It's life.  Stuff happens.

[FLOG4]

So lets review the input here....Numerous homeowners have weighed in to say they are responsible for damages to their property from flying golf balls.  One guy weighed in and said he had to sign a hold harmless in favor of the golf course...No homeowner has stated that the golfer is responsible....One guy said he confronts offenders and he has had them pay.  Just because you strongarm someone doesn't mean it was the right proceedure.  No golfer aims at the house with intent to hit it.  If it is directly in my line of play to the green I am aiming at the green.  Many people have this feeling or thought that the golfer should be held responsible for his actions.  And somehow you totally disregard the golf courses role in this poor design.   The golfers intent is to hit the ball on the green or fairway. NOT HIT the house.  REPEAT THE GOLFERS INTENT IS TO HIT THE GREEN, NOT THE HOUSE. The golf course developers intent was to jam in as many houses as possible regardless of the potential harm that could come to certain lots....NOT all lots next to golf courses....JUST one or two here and there that were POORLY designed. Appropriate feedback has been put forth overwelmingly to show this to be true.  BUT some folks have their way of thinking and it's not gonna change. I feel sorry for the folks who got places on corners of doglegs with their houses nearer the course than not, and anyone who has a place 150 yards out on the right on a specific hole. The most common spot to get whacked.   While it may seem counterintuitive that a golfer isn't responsible for his bad shot, he is only when malicious intent can be proven.  Move on.

[newtogolf]

Overall I agree with what you wrote,

1. the golf course developers are sometimes greedy and sell lots for homes to be constructed that are too close to the course and in harms way.
2. Those who buy homes that reside on the golf course are aware of the risk and should have reasonable expectations that their house or occupants could be struck by a mis hit golf ball though they don't expect their home to be "in play".
3. Responsible golfers would never intentionally attempt to hit at a house.

Where this all becomes muddy is when a golfer say mishits a ball way off the fairway into woods or heavy rough near a house.  The most appropriate shot would be to take their medicine and hit it straight back out to the fairway, but they see a potential for another shot that gets them closer to the green but requires they hit draw / fade around or hit over the house.  This is where intent and negligence comes in, the average golfer might sometimes hit such a shot off a clean lie, but the chances for success are significantly reduced if attempted it out of woods or heavy rough.  If the golfer doesn't choose to do the safe thing (punch it out to the fairway) and instead attempts a Phil M shot through the woods and around or over the house, but fails and ends up taking out out a window was the golfer negligent for taking the shot and responsible for the damage?

Quote:

So lets review the input here....Numerous homeowners have weighed in to say they are responsible for damages to their property from flying golf balls.  One guy weighed in and said he had to sign a hold harmless in favor of the golf course...No homeowner has stated that the golfer is responsible....One guy said he confronts offenders and he has had them pay.  Just because you strongarm someone doesn't mean it was the right proceedure.  No golfer aims at the house with intent to hit it.  If it is directly in my line of play to the green I am aiming at the green.  Many people have this feeling or thought that the golfer should be held responsible for his actions.  And somehow you totally disregard the golf courses role in this poor design.   The golfers intent is to hit the ball on the green or fairway. NOT HIT the house.  REPEAT THE GOLFERS INTENT IS TO HIT THE GREEN, NOT THE HOUSE. The golf course developers intent was to jam in as many houses as possible regardless of the potential harm that could come to certain lots....NOT all lots next to golf courses....JUST one or two here and there that were POORLY designed. Appropriate feedback has been put forth overwelmingly to show this to be true.  BUT some folks have their way of thinking and it's not gonna change. I feel sorry for the folks who got places on corners of doglegs with their houses nearer the course than not, and anyone who has a place 150 yards out on the right on a specific hole. The most common spot to get whacked.   While it may seem counterintuitive that a golfer isn't responsible for his bad shot, he is only when malicious intent can be proven.  Move on.