Sliced a ball into an expensive window. Did I do the right thing?

[bjwestner]

I can build my house in the line of fire and put up no nets, or use no plexiglass on the windows, facing the tee and basically dare every person that comes through to break it and then expect them to pay for that.  How is that not irresponsible????

I don't think that there's a single instance in this entire thread where anyone has talked about what the homeowner should or should not "expect".

In fact, if you read my very first post I said that whether the homeowner should accept an offer of payment is an entirely different discussion......and it is.  The discussion here is the about what the golfer should, or should not do.

It depends on the specifics of the house and it's location.  If it's a house that is on the left side of the nearest tee box then as a homeowner I'd expect the same risks that any other homeowner in the same city/area would have.  If it's on the right side of the nearest tee box then I'd probably expect a broken window here or there and there are plenty of coverage options available in those circumstances.

[krupa]

And I'm glad you realize that it should be the homeowner's financial responsibility to either protect the windows of the house they bought in the rough or pay for replacing them on occasion.  I just disagree with what I see as a silly, ritualistic idea of courtesy where the "right" thing to do is disingenuously offer to pay for replacing the window when I believe that it is in fact the homeowner who's totally responsible in this case and I wouldn't in fact pay for it.  If the homeowner's there they would presumably come outside to see what happened, and I'd surely apologize.  But I wouldn't offer to pay to replace the window cause I don't think it's my responsibility in this case.

This seems an obvious special case to me.  If you buy a house RIGHT NEXT to a hole on a golf course, it is YOUR responsibility to protect the house.  Nets, screens, unbreakable windows, whatever.  It just seems obviously totally different to me than my kid breaking my neighbor's window.  The lawnmower and car examples are of course totally ridiculous and have nothing to do with this debate at all.

And around we go again...  Regardless of the what the homeowner does, I -- as the golfer who hit the golf ball-- will feel responsible for breaking the window and will offer to make restitution.  I can't see any other way to deal with the situation.

And my question to you is, why wouldn't you offer to fix a window that you broke with your golf ball ?

[Lihu]

Golfindad, I like the idea but it will never happen.  That is asking a golf course to take responsibility for the shots that it's players hit.  I work in insurance and actually some of our clients are golf courses.  They do have liability insurance and are occasionally dragged in to some odd losses.  Many courses already pay sky high insurance premiums just for the risks that they are responsible for (various injuries, slips/falls, golf cart dangers, food/hospitality risks, etc.).  Furthermore, I cannot see any insurer taking on that kind of risk (insuring the shots of golfers that they do not know and cannot underwrite considering all the potential consequences).  There are rare circumstances where the courses insurance will step up but those are increasingly rare which is why you see at just about every course signs making it clear to the golfers that they are responsible for any damage they cause.

We took the shot, it is our risk and responsibility. Period.

However, the golf courses around here actually have sky high premiums, which is why they are allowed to operate in a urban areas. This is one of the reasons they charge a lot of money for our greens fees.

Separation of the golfer from the home owner is a good idea as well . The Golf course needs to be between the two to prevent any potentially belligerent encounters.

[bjwestner]

So if the house is negligent for being in the wrong spot, are women that dress in a way that attracts attention partially negligent if they are assaulted/raped?

You could use the same argument in theory, "they knew they were going to have windows broken and damage as the house is right next to the course"....."if the developer did not put the house so close to the out of bounds line then their house would not have gotten hit"

[Fourputt]

You didn't do the right thing. My parents live on a private course. A couple of times I've seen my step-dad bean someone's house. Most in the path of errant balls have massive nets protecting them. Anyway he hit one of the million plus dollar houses, wasn't even a window just the side of it, and it made a loud bang. He rolls up gets out of his cart and heads to their front door to apologize. Their they have signs all over saying any damage is the responsibility of the golfer.

My take on it is if you can't afford to replace the windows then you shouldn't be playing on courses like that. It's not the homeowners fault you can't control your drives. There are plenty of open courses in every town.

I could say the same about those who own houses in the line of fire.  If you can't afford to replace (or insure) a window now and then, you shouldn't live on a golf course.  I see it as no different from living on a flood plain or sea shore, then whining because you have water damage.

Golfindad, I like the idea but it will never happen.  That is asking a golf course to take responsibility for the shots that it's players hit.  I work in insurance and actually some of our clients are golf courses.  They do have liability insurance and are occasionally dragged in to some odd losses.  Many courses already pay sky high insurance premiums just for the risks that they are responsible for (various injuries, slips/falls, golf cart dangers, food/hospitality risks, etc.).  Furthermore, I cannot see any insurer taking on that kind of risk (insuring the shots of golfers that they do not know and cannot underwrite considering all the potential consequences).  There are rare circumstances where the courses insurance will step up but those are increasingly rare which is why you see at just about every course signs making it clear to the golfers that they are responsible for any damage they cause.

And any lawyer will tell you that such signs are mostly a waste of good paint.  Just as the liability releases one signs when participating in a risky activity (like river rafting) are more for one's psychological comfort that for any real legal purpose, despite the belief.

[bjwestner]

I could say the same about those who own houses in the line of fire.  If you can't afford to replace (or insure) a window now and then, you shouldn't live on a golf course.  I see it as no different from living on a flood plain or sea shore, then whining because you have water damage.

So how is that argument any different than using that argument for the assault/rape of women?  I'm sure your not going to say that you agree and that it's the same thing, so how do you justify there is negligence on the homeowner but not the female?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I could say the same about those who own houses in the line of fire.  If you can't afford to replace (or insure) a window now and then, you shouldn't live on a golf course.  I see it as no different from living on a flood plain or sea shore, then whining because you have water damage.

So how is that argument any different than using that argument for the assault/rape of women?  I'm sure your not going to say that you agree and that it's the same thing, so how do you justify there is negligence on the homeowner but not the female?

If you can't see any difference then I feel really sorry for you.

[DeadMan]

So how is that argument any different than using that argument for the assault/rape of women?  I'm sure your not going to say that you agree and that it's the same thing, so how do you justify there is negligence on the homeowner but not the female?

Let's stop this stupid logic once and for all. The difference is the person who rapes/assualts the woman did it [b]intentionally[/b]. In this situation, the golfer didn't intend to hit the house. I think this line of reasoning is insulting, as well. Use something else before my head explodes.

[David in FL]

And I'm glad you realize that it should be the homeowner's financial responsibility to either protect the windows of the house they bought in the rough or pay for replacing them on occasion.  I just disagree with what I see as a silly, ritualistic idea of courtesy where the "right" thing to do is disingenuously offer to pay for replacing the window when I believe that it is in fact the homeowner who's totally responsible in this case and I wouldn't in fact pay for it.  If the homeowner's there they would presumably come outside to see what happened, and I'd surely apologize.  But I wouldn't offer to pay to replace the window cause I don't think it's my responsibility in this case.

This seems an obvious special case to me.  If you buy a house RIGHT NEXT to a hole on a golf course, it is YOUR responsibility to protect the house.  Nets, screens, unbreakable windows, whatever.  It just seems obviously totally different to me than my kid breaking my neighbor's window.  The lawnmower and car examples are of course totally ridiculous and have nothing to do with this debate at all.

What would you apologize for, since you don't believe that you're responsible for the golf ball that you hit?

Remember that the next time that your parked car gets hit in the parking lot and the bastard leaves without leaving a note.  You shouldn't have parked somewhere where you know other cars are going to be moving in close proximity to yours without taking extraordinary steps to protect it.

And around we go again...  Regardless of the what the homeowner does, I -- as the golfer who hit the golf ball-- will feel responsible for breaking the window and will offer to make restitution.  I can't see any other way to deal with the situation.

And my question to you is, why wouldn't you offer to fix a window that you broke with your golf ball?

Because he blames the homeowner for his choice in houses.  Yeah, I know how ridiculous that sounds.  Some people just have VERY different values when it comes to personal integrity and responsibility for their actions, preferring to blame others rather than accept responsibility for things that they do.  Since you cannot fix someone's character, the best that we can hope for is that our paths don't cross.

The difference is the person who rapes/assualts the woman did it intentionally. In this situation, the golfer didn't intend to hit the house.

So only intent determines whether you're accountable for causing someone else harm?

Good grief.....

[Golfingdad]

You don't always have to go very far out of your way to hit a house on some courses.  While it's certainly cowardly and bad form to run away, I'd have to say that somebody buying those houses would be silly not to expect occasional pummelings.

I agree, but this goes both ways, does it not?  You should certainly accept personal reponsibility for hitting a house, but isn't it reasonable to also expect the homeeowner to assume some responsibility for choosing that house?  "Hey, how the heck was I supposed to know that golf balls would end up in my back yard that is 30 yards away from a golf course??!!??  That is inexplicable!!!!"

It would certainly be something I would consider when I was shopping for a house near a golf course.

I don't think that there's a single instance in this entire thread where anyone has talked about what the homeowner should or should not "expect".

The above are 2 of my several posts in this thread.  Pretty sure I can find many others if I keep looking.

I believe the phrase is ... "reading is fundamental."

P.S.  10 seconds?  Seriously, the ball was on it's way down and still hadn't hit the ground "a good 10 seconds" later.  Now who's the one being hyperbolic?

[DeadMan]

I'm curious about those that say they would pay for this damage. What would you do in the following situation? [LIST] [*] Your golf ball breaks something on a course-adjacent house that is worth an amount that you cannot afford to pay, and you cannot easily get a side job to pay for it. This is will be different for different people, but imagine it's $10,000 or $100,000. [*] You apologize, offer to pay for the damage, and the owner accepts. You refer him to your homeowner's insurance to cover the damage. [*] Your homeowner's insurance refuses to cover the claim because it has determined you are not liable for the damage. (And, assume that you are not legally liable for the damage) [/LIST] What are you going to do?

[David in FL]

The above are 2 of my several posts in this thread.  Pretty sure I can find many others if I keep looking.

I believe the phrase is ... "reading is fundamental."

P.S.  10 seconds?  Seriously, the ball was on it's way down and still hadn't hit the ground "a good 10 seconds" later.  Now who's the one being hyperbolic?

Huh?

No one from the "accept personal responsibility" side of the argument has agreed, or even discussed whether the homeowner should demand anything of the golfer.  Only a couple of you have gone down that particular path of misdirection.

As to my story......literary license, but it was up there FOREVER!

[krupa]

I'm curious about those that say they would pay for this damage. What would you do in the following situation?

Your golf ball breaks something on a course-adjacent house that is worth an amount that you cannot afford to pay, and you cannot easily get a side job to pay for it. This is will be different for different people, but imagine it's $10,000 or $100,000.

You apologize, offer to pay for the damage, and the owner accepts. You refer him to your homeowner's insurance to cover the damage.

Your homeowner's insurance refuses to cover the claim because it has determined you are not liable for the damage. (And, assume that you are not legally liable for the damage)

What are you going to do?

I would talk it over with the owner and try to work something out.  I may not be able to repay the full value of something I broke but I can try to make it right.  Life is unfair, though.  The owner could be a total d-bag  and take me to court anyway.

[turtleback]

[DeadMan]

I would talk it over with the owner and try to work something out.  I may not be able to repay the full value of something I broke but I can try to make it right.  Life is unfair, though.  The owner could be a total d-bag  and take me to court anyway.

You get an F. ;-) Assume he will lose in court (that's what I meant when I said you are not legally liable). And assume you won't have to pay legal fees.

[mdl]

What would you apologize for, since you don't believe that you're responsible for the golf ball that you hit?

Remember that the next time that your parked car gets hit in the parking lot and the bastard leaves without leaving a note.  You shouldn't have parked somewhere where you know other cars are going to be moving in close proximity to yours without taking extraordinary steps to protect it.

I'd apologize for the inconvenience of them having to fix their window.  I just would not disingenuously offer to pay for it expecting them to say no thank you.

I find it hard to believe you guys don't see a difference between this situation and these ridiculously dissimilar situations you keep comparing them too.  If I hit someone's car in a parking lot and it causes any visible damage at all, I'm leaving a note.  I'd be pissed if someone else did it to me and didn't.  But, if my car is dinged or a window broken by a golf ball at my home course when I chose to park where I know there's a non-zero chance a ball could get duck hooked into my car?  I'm not expecting a note.  That's 100% my fault for not wanting to walk farther in order to park somewhere I know there's no chance of being hit by a golf ball.

Because he blames the homeowner for his choice in houses.  Yeah, I know how ridiculous that sounds.  Some people just have VERY different values when it comes to personal integrity and responsibility for their actions, preferring to blame others rather than accept responsibility for things that they do.  Since you cannot fix someone's character, the best that we can hope for is that our paths don't cross.

Hope the view is nice from your high horse.  My idea of personal integrity and responsibility is expecting others to take the responsibility that I would were I in their situation.  If I were to buy a house next to a fairway, I would expect either some homeowners' assoc deal with the course/insurance company where they pay for damage, or it's 100% my responsibility to protect my house and pay for damage.  The golfers are just playing the course.  It's not their fault that a home was built really close to the hole.  That the golfers are responsible for my buying a home super close to the course just seems a laughable idea of responsibility or integrity to me.  In fact it seems exactly backwards.  The owner expecting an offer of financial restitution seems entitled and selfish.  And it also seems laughable to think this situation has any similarity at all to hitting someone/thing with your car or damaging your neighbor's property or the like.

[Dave2512]

Couple more pics I took last night. I really don't have a dog in this fight, I don't care what other people do or don't, has no affect on what I do. My contention is just that houses here are pretty tough to hit. Those that could be are usually protected by nets. This homeowner put up a massive net but in two years playing this course I've never seen anyone hit it that way. The green they are closest to is a 292 yard par 4. Even someone having a really bad day isn't going to hit a wedge the 50 or so yards off-line it would take to get it to the net so I assume their worry is the next hole and errant shots from the tee. But again it would have to be not only way right but real short, like 140 yard slice short that bends 30-40 yards right. I can't imagine hitting a shot like that. I suppose a kid or woman could. Either way the homeowner decided not to chance it and I assume figured the net was cheaper than repairs and safer than being exposed.

First pic is just right of the green on the cart path, you can see how far away the houses are. Second is from the next tee. The hole plays towards that house in the distance.

[krupa]

You get an F.

Assume he will lose in court (that's what I meant when I said you are not legally liable). And assume you won't have to pay legal fees.

I'm sorry, you're grading my morals?

Ok, so basically I'm not financially or legally obligated to fix/replace something I can't afford to fix/replace...

If the owner's not happy with anything but 100% replacement, then I guess he won't be  happy.  Life is unfair.  If I do everything in my power to correct a situation I caused but it's not enough, then it's not enough.  I owned up to breaking the thing.  I tried to replace it, I couldn't replace it so I tried to make it as right as I could.  At this point in the hypothetical situation, I will not have trouble hypothetically sleeping.