Courses That Are Surrounded by Houses. Who's Responsible for the Damage?

[Smidd4]

Curious on your thoughts here. My home course has signs saying "You are responsible for damage caused by your shot". I am just as guilty as the next guy when it comes to hitting and errant shot from time to time (some rounds more often than not) and if I hit a house I always go over and check for damage to make sure I don't owe anyone a new window. I was at PGA West this spring and we got paired up with two nice gentlemen who live on the course. My buddy proceeded to slice a drive and hit something that I can only assume was a window and it sure sounded like it broke. We started to go over there and our partners stopped us and told us that we are not responsible for anything that may have been broken, it goes with the territory of living on a golf course. Is this typical practice that you have all seen? Who is really liable for the damage? Homeowner? Course? Us?

[SteveH]

I avoid playing courses that are surrounded by houses as it messes up my game just having to focus on not hitting houses. I have always understood that each golfer is reponsible for any damage his ball may do and that is what all the courses seem to advise also. Your personal liability on your homeowner insurance should cover it just in case.  Insured or not, i still avoid them as much as possible.

[Patch]

IMHO the golfer is responsible should they hit a house or a person, and cause harm or damage. To me this falls under the etiquette part of golf. The house is already there, and the golfer should know enough about their game to know better.

Now I was part of jury where the defense lawyer sucessfully argued that the golfer was not liable because the home owner, by purchasing a home on a golf course gave "implied consent". I still voted for the home owner, but they still lost by 7-2 vote. 

I have also read where a home owners' association was successfull in suing the golf course because they failed to protect the home owners's property. Something about the golf course making money but not doing anything about errant golf ball flights.

One of my son in laws broke a huge window with bad hook. He went up to tell owner that he would py for the damage. The owner told him to just pay the deductible, that his HO insurance would pay for the rest. 

[Abu3baid]

I have a feeling like this has been discussed on the site before, either way I strongly feel that the player has 0 liability for any damage or injury they cause unless it is proven to be straight up negligence or intent to do harm.. In that case they should have the book thrown at them..  

[SavvySwede]

I think it depends on what was built first.

1. New house built along an older course.- Homeowner should pay for the damages.

2. Built together as part of a community. -Course/homeowners association should deal with it.

3. Course built alongside existing houses. - Course should pay damages/take measures to protect houses. (nets, utilize natural barriers in design, etc)

 

Agree with @Abu3baid. The golfers should only be held responsible if they can be shown to be negligent.

[No Mulligans]

The course or the homeowner in my opinion.

The golfer is just doing what he is suppose to be doing.  And, even the very best golfers in the world hit errant shots.

My dad was the attorney for several ski resort and wrote that verbiage on the tickets about the ticket buyer/skier releasing the ski resort from all liability.  He said it would never hold up in court if the skier was harmed due to the resorts negligence.  It was just written to discourage lawsuits.

Don't believe those signs on the courses that say the golfers are liable for any damage they cause.

 

[DaveP043]

Normally, I'd say that the golfer is responsible for the results of his actions.  However, I can see a case where a both the housing and the golf club are developed by the same entity.  and the developer may have language in the homeowners agreement that places the responsibility on the homeowner.  If you don't like the homeowners agreement, don't buy in that development.  In the OP's situation, he's playing with homeowners, they presumably understand whose responsibility it is, I'd have to trust them.  

[Patch]

I am of the opinion that golfers who think it's the home owners problem better hope they have alot golfers on their jury panel should it get that far. 

Here's a question since I am sure there is at least one attorney on this site. How tough would it be for a prosecuter to prove the golfer negligent for not learning to control their golf shots a high % of the time?

This actually happened at the Anthem GC some years ago during charity event. Myself and a local bank CEO were paired  with couple MLB players.  The banker hit a hook that went through a window, and hit an elderly lady sitting at her breakfast table. The ball broke her wrist. The banker went  to lady's back yard and was met by the lady's husband. The banker offered to pay for the window, but would not assume responsibility for the lady's broken wrist. Long story short. The banker wound up paying, by court order, for the window, the injury, plus  several thousands more in pain and suffering. I know this because myself and the two MLB players had to testify for the prosecution as eye witnesses. The banker was a 5 hdcpr. He lost because he knew he could hit an errant shot at anytime, but still decided play the course, surrounded by homes anyways. The judge also said the lady had a great expectation of safety from errant golf shots while sitting inside her own home. 

Edited December 24, 2015 by Patch

[Shindig]

You said this happened in California, OP?  My understanding of existing case law (and it will be state dependent) is that as long as you weren't deliberately causing the damage (i.e., teeing up and trying to smash a window with your shot to duplicate something you saw on The Big Break), it's the homeowner's responsibility, not yours.  I looked up the case law a few years ago and don't have the links anymore (pun intended) -- but there are some older threads I can dig up if you really want.  I looked it up for a TST thread -- this hasn't happened to me.

Whether or not you should be liable, or should elect to pay I can't say.  I believe your friends are correct that you're in the clear legally.  Whether or not being in the clear legally is sufficient for you to choose to not pay isn't a decision I can make on your behalf and probably won't be resolved within 2000 follow-up comments.

[DrvFrShow]

Anyone could hook a shot and hit a house bordering a golf course. You could hit an errant shot that ricochets off a tree and goes through a window. 

Now about the banker..... were there white boundary stakes marking the course boundaries and did he try to play the ball from inside her house?

[mchepp]

Should be covered with the owners homeowners insurance, no? I have a friend who lives on a course and told me he pays a slightly higher amount for his insurance to cover golf ball damage. 

[Psyber]

Florida law states that the homeowner is responsible. 

[Pendragon]

I live in a gated community in California where there are lots of homes on the course. As Shindig noted above, the homeowner is liable unless it can be proven that you were deliberately trying to hit the house. I've seen a few heated arguments where the homeowner isn't familiar with the law, but the golfer is not liable. Some of my buddies who've hit houses and caused some damage have elected to pay for it, but they're under no obligation to do that. 

[No Mulligans]

3 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

 Some of my buddies who've hit houses and caused some damage have elected to pay for it, but they're under no obligation to do that. 

Well played.  What the law says and what one chooses to do don't necessarily have to be the same.

 

[ghalfaire]

This has been discussed on earlier thread. I am not a lawyer but do know the home owner assumes the liability for errant shots' damage to the home if they live on a golf course.  Having said that, the golfer (nor the golf course owner for that matter) is not entitled to act negligently or maliciously and if they do then they assume liability for damage caused.

[jkelley9]

Wow, this is quite shocking to me. So to make a relevant example point: what if my children (which, I actually don't have any...) are playing with my clubs and hitting balls around in the front yard (without my knowledge of course!) and one goes through a neighbor's window? Am I also not technically liable for that? I'm curious how the litigation draws the line on this type of a law? It sounds like a few people said it was a state-level law? So it wouldn't even be something like a clause in an HOA or other association that is contingent upon purchasing a neighborhood in a golf neighborhood... or even an insurance flag for property in golfing neighborhoods that require additional coverage... is what it sounds like? Very strange.

[Pretzel]

8 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

So to make a relevant example point: what if my children (which, I actually don't have any...) are playing with my clubs and hitting balls around in the front yard (without my knowledge of course!) and one goes through a neighbor's window? Am I also not technically liable for that? 

That's not a relevant example. People who buy a house on a golf course are aware of the assumed risk taken on by the homeowner that a golf ball may be hit towards their building. Your neighbor has no such assumed risk, since they did not purchase their home with the express knowledge that there was a golf course nearby and (as such) golf balls may incur damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk

It's kind of like how the NFL isn't liable for the injuries caused to players while playing football, but they are liable for some damage caused by concussions because they specifically covered up the dangers of concussions and did not adequately protect players to prevent permanent damage from concussions.

[No Mulligans]

9 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

Wow, this is quite shocking to me. So to make a relevant example point: what if my children (which, I actually don't have any...) are playing with my clubs and hitting balls around in the front yard (without my knowledge of course!) and one goes through a neighbor's window? Am I also not technically liable for that? I'm curious how the litigation draws the line on this type of a law? It sounds like a few people said it was a state-level law? So it wouldn't even be something like a clause in an HOA or other association that is contingent upon purchasing a neighborhood in a golf neighborhood... or even an insurance flag for property in golfing neighborhoods that require additional coverage... is what it sounds like? Very strange.

The difference is on a golf course the golfer is doing what is expected and intended on that property.  The person who buys a house on a course knows that errant balls are a problem associated with the property.

Hitting balls from a front or back yard is obviously completely different.

(edit: Pretzel said the same thing, but better. We posted at the same time.)