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

[InTheRough]

It's a strawman because no house, anywhere, exists 30 feet foul of an adult league baseline. Period.

We operate under very different sets of values.

you are actually very wrong about this here.  I have played on many baseball fields where houses are very close to the field and well within normal foul ball or home run balls.  I think you are absolving the home owner of a little too much in these situations.  While it is certainly not their fault that their house got hit, they are certainly responsible for buying a house on a golf course in range of an errant drive.

i've actually done some research into this topic because i have hit some very wayward drives that have come very close to hitting houses.  the law varies by state, but in general, unless the golfer is being actively negligent (this means hitting a person or house that is in their intended target line...so trying to hit a ball over a house to cut a corner or hitting into slow playing groups and hitting somebody in that group) the golfer is not responsible for errant shots.  the rulings on these cases have been made under the premise that since the best professional golfers cannot always control where they hit the ball, then the average player cannot be expected to hit a perfect shot every time.  Houses on golf courses have special insurance for just these situations, unless the course was built after the houses were there in which case the golf course is responsible for having insurance to cover these errant shots.

[David in FL]

[QUOTE][/QUOTE][quote name="InTheRough" url="/t/76349/sliced-a-ball-into-an-expensive-window-did-i-do-the-right-thing/144#post_1035599"]you are actually very wrong about this here.  I have played on many baseball fields where houses are very close to the field and well within normal foul ball or home run balls.  I think you are absolving the home owner of a little too much in these situations.  While it is certainly not their fault that their house got hit, they are certainly responsible for buying a house on a golf course in range of an errant drive. i've actually done some research into this topic because i have hit some very wayward drives that have come very close to hitting houses.  the law varies by state, but in general, unless the golfer is being actively negligent (this means hitting a person or house that is in their intended target line...so trying to hit a ball over a house to cut a corner or hitting into slow playing groups and hitting somebody in that group) the golfer is not responsible for errant shots.  the rulings on these cases have been made under the premise that since the best professional golfers cannot always control where they hit the ball, then the average player cannot be expected to hit a perfect shot every time.  Houses on golf courses have special insurance for just these situations, unless the course was built after the houses were there in which case the golf course is responsible for having insurance to cover these errant shots. [/quote] You have NEVER played on a field where there was a house within 30 feet of the baseline. Never. Again, I don't care about the law. Only about what is right.

[Golfingdad]

It's a strawman because no house, anywhere, exists 30 feet foul of an adult league baseline. Period.

We operate under very different sets of values.

You are really picking at nits to try and stay astride your extra tall horse on this one.  And isn't it just the teensy tiny bit possible that you're wrong**, instead of the alternative, which is a lot of smart and good guys have no morals??  Come on.

And it's already been answered, but you're dead wrong about the fact that there are no baseball fields with houses in range of foul balls and home runs.  And, besides, why doesn't my car example work?  It's also the same thing.  You park your car in range, you accept the responsibility you may get hit, do you not?

I thought of another analogy on my way home from work today:  Driving on the freeway, I frequently get pelted by rocks that are shot up by the car in front of me and my windshield gets cracked.  Is it the states fault that there was a loose piece of gravel on the road?  Is it the guy in front of me because, after all, he "hit it?  Or, just maybe, is it up to me to take responsibility for my own windshield because its the risk I assumed when I knowingly got on the freeway?

**And when I say wrong, I don't mean wrong as in 'the golfer shouldn't go say sorry and offer to pay for it.'  I mean wrong as in, 'if you suggest that maybe the homeowner should at least assume some responsibility, that you are devoid of morals.'

[atxpkrgolf]

If you live on or on the border of a golf course you have to be realistic and realize that a golf ball might do damage to your property. It's like an extra "tax", whether you pay more for insurance or just deal with it when stuff happens. Having said that I think the right thing to do, whether it's a 5 million dollar house or a 100K house, is to get in contact with the homeowner, make sure no one is hurt and make an offer or give them your insurance info. "Running away" is BS.

My exact thoughts. Leave a note and explain u don't have $ to pay for it. They might surprise u and tell you it's ok and then again they might ask u to share cost or accept responsibility. Either way, you'll be doing the right thing. Leave a note with. Buddies ph # if ur rlly scared :-P

[David in FL]

First, there are NO baseball fields with houses within 30 feet of the baseline . That's what the strawman claimed....30 feet. That's what defines it as a strawman......right along with your rocks kicked up by tires analogy. Second, I never said that you or anyone else was devoid of morals. Just that your moral system and mine are quite different when it comes to personal responsibility. Maybe it would make more sense to you if I explained that if someone broke my window, and came up to me to offer to pay, I would thank them for their honesty and refuse payment. That doesn't mean that it wasn't right for them to offer though. If you cause someone harm, whether intentional or not, you should accept responsibility for your actions and offer to make it right to the best of your ability. If you don't agree with that, you're not necessarily devoid of morals, but you certainly operate with a different set than those with which I was raised. Of course, you DO live in California, so....... ;-)

[InTheRough]

You have NEVER played on a field where there was a house within 30 feet of the baseline. Never.

Again, I don't care about the law. Only about what is right.

fair enough...maybe not the baseline however 30-60 feet outside of a baseball field's fenced in area is very common and just as easily hit.  what about a fan that gets hit by a foul ball at a little league game? do you sue the kid for hitting the foul ball and expect him or her to pay for damages, or do you expect the spectator to have thier own set of morals and take responsibility for being in an area where they could have been hit by a ball?

[Pretzel]

Please don't let "the courts" dictate or limit your own moral standard. You're better than that.

I'll let my wallet tell me what the courts have already told others. I can't afford to pay for that window as a student in high school, and there is no legal reason for me to pay for it. That's why they have insurance, and they are perfectly able to put up netting on their own.

[Golfingdad]

First, there are NO baseball fields with houses within 30 feet of the baseline. That's what the strawman claimed....30 feet. That's what defines it as a strawman......

But why waste a couple of back and forth posts when you know that even if the number is hyperbolic, the point is valid?  There are houses out there that are within foul ball or home run distance of baseball fields, and I'd already given an example with the cars.  And the analogy could also work for windows at the park concession stand, or windows on the school gym too.

(And not sure why you think the rock on the highway is a strawman too, but whatever)

Second, I never said that you or anyone else was devoid of morals. Just that your moral system and mine are quite different when it comes to personal responsibility.

Oh, OK.  I was reading those comments - and you've said it a few times - as being a sarcastic way of saying that we didn't have no morals.  My bad, hard to read tone on here sometimes. ;)

Maybe it would make more sense to you if I explained that if someone broke my window, and came up to me to offer to pay, I would thank them for their honesty and refuse payment.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  I've said this from the beginning.

[mdl]

Sure I exaggerated the number a tad. But my little league fields had two or three houses in easy foul ball territory. The situation is identical. I find it very hard to believe you think the kid or the parent should pay for a window. I think your high horse is totally unjustified here. Sure, if my kid was playing baseball in the back yard and broke the neighbor's window, or I did hitting a ridiculously errant practice pitch shot, I'd pay for it. Absolutely. I just think it would be really entitled and self important to choose to live in the rough on a golf course and think anything other than 100% of any damage is your own responsibility. So as a player, I feel no duty to make a ritualistic trip to knock on a door where either both people feel it's entirely unnecessary or the owner's an entitled a-hole and I'm just walking into a fight for no reason.

[brookter]

Do none of you have golfing insurance? Not just for the damage, but the risk of injury to others?

[David in FL]

Sure I exaggerated the number a tad. But my little league fields had two or three houses in easy foul ball territory. The situation is identical. I find it very hard to believe you think the kid or the parent should pay for a window. I think your high horse is totally unjustified here. Sure, if my kid was playing baseball in the back yard and broke the neighbor's window, or I did hitting a ridiculously errant practice pitch shot, I'd pay for it. Absolutely. I just think it would be really entitled and self important to choose to live in the rough on a golf course and think anything other than 100% of any damage is your own responsibility. So as a player, I feel no duty to make a ritualistic trip to knock on a door where either both people feel it's entirely unnecessary or the owner's an entitled a-hole and I'm just walking into a fight for no reason.

Other than to say that if I were the home owner, I wouldn't accept payment, I've never once talked about the what the homeowner might, or might not expect. Reading is fundamental..... ;-)

[Slice of Life]

What if you hit a ball so far offline that you almost hit kids playing in the backyard, and the 6'2" 225 lb dad comes walking over ready to beat your ass?

@Jeremie Boop lol

[Lihu]

What if you hit a ball so far offline that you almost hit kids playing in the backyard, and the 6'2" 225 lb dad comes walking over ready to beat your ass? @Jeremie Boop lol

Get behind @Golfingdad , of course! :-D

[MSchott]

Do none of you have golfing insurance? Not just for the damage, but the risk of injury to others?

I've never heard of this before. As far as I know it does not exist in the US.

[Lihu]

I've never heard of this before. As far as I know it does not exist in the US.

I guess it does exist, just googled it.

[brookter]

Over here (UK), I think it's fairly common to have insurance amongst club members at least -- probably much rarer amongst casual golfers, of course.

Mine covers new-for-old replacement of equipment, 3rd party injury, damage, club membership or tournament fees if I can't compete due to injury, hole-in-one bar fees and so on and so on.

I've only ever claimed for Garmin GPS watch, which the labrador puppy ate...

[bjwestner]

I'll let my wallet tell me what the courts have already told others. I can't afford to pay for that window as a student in high school, and there is no legal reason for me to pay for it. That's why they have insurance, and they are perfectly able to put up netting on their own.

So you want to play a gentlemens game but not be held responsible for your actions?  I hope you are aware that most things in the world do not work this way, i.e. if you rear end someone, you are responsible for the damage to their vehicle and their injuries.  Just because other vehicles are on the road does not give absolve responsibility and neither does a house on a course make it okay for someone to cause property damage and not be responsible.

I'm actually in shock after reading so many posts from people that actually think it's okay for the OP to not have to pay for the damage that he/she caused.  Most if not all golf courses have signs that let each golfer know that the course is not responsible for damage that the individual golfer does and that it's their (the golfer's) responsibility.  The perceived wealth of the owner of the house is high or low has nothing to do with this.

You say you are too poor to pay for the damage you caused, I really hope that you do not have any children.

Also, please answer me this question.....Sergio Garcia recently hit a woman that was a spectator at a tournament.  Being that close in the crowd like that at a tournament is a risk and that's communicated as there is chance for bodily injury or death.  Under your guidelines, the lady's insurance should have paid for the diamond that Sergio knocked out (assuming if it was never found) versus him offering to pay for it?  Why did he offer that then?  It does not surprise me that you fudged your score and did not hole out.  If you read the rules then you would know that you post your score as it is and ESC applies only after you enter the real score.

[Pretzel]

So you want to play a gentlemens game but not be held responsible for your actions?  I hope you are aware that most things in the world do not work this way, i.e. if you rear end someone, you are responsible for the damage to their vehicle and their injuries.  Just because other vehicles are on the road does not give absolve responsibility and neither does a house on a course make it okay for someone to cause property damage and not be responsible.

I'm actually in shock after reading so many posts from people that actually think it's okay for the OP to not have to pay for the damage that he/she caused.  Most if not all golf courses have signs that let each golfer know that the course is not responsible for damage that the individual golfer does and that it's their (the golfer's) responsibility.  The perceived wealth of the owner of the house is high or low has nothing to do with this.

You say you are too poor to pay for the damage you caused, I really hope that you do not have any children.

Also, please answer me this question.....Sergio Garcia recently hit a woman that was a spectator at a tournament.  Being that close in the crowd like that at a tournament is a risk and that's communicated as there is chance for bodily injury or death.  Under your guidelines, the lady's insurance should have paid for the diamond that Sergio knocked out (assuming if it was never found) versus him offering to pay for it?  Why did he offer that then?  It does not surprise me that you fudged your score and did not hole out.  If you read the rules then you would know that you post your score as it is and ESC applies only after you enter the real score.

I've said repeatedly that I would go up and at least notify the owner of the property of what would happen. The fact that golf is a gentlemen's game does nothing to affect the fact that me, as a high schooler, cannot afford to buy someone a window. Since the law says I do not have to buy the person a window, I will not buy them a window because I cannot afford it and do not have to.

You say you are too poor to pay for the damage you caused, I really hope that you do not have any children.

You must have missed the part where I'm a student in high school. It would currently be scientifically impossible for me to have had (or have within 9 months) any children.