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

[jkelley9]

You both may have missed my point. It would be silly of me to think otherwise. But my point was is how the litigation itself reads. It's a point of interest really, on how that "became a law." If I broke something, I would pay for it, though. 

I would have assumed instead that rather than a LAW, it would be contingent in a mandatory association when purchasing property, OR be an easily supportable statistic from the homeowners insurance databases that would increase the premium naturally from that property because it's more subject to claims. Just like how if you buy a fancy sports car, you'll typically have a higher insurance cost; but that doesn't require any laws to go into effect because of that statistic. 

Again, I'm really not arguing with you here lol. I'm just kinda perplexed.

Eh, now that I'm thinking about it more. I guess it does make perfect sense what y'all said. Just kind of a headscratcher to what you would think would be the right thing to do.

Edited December 29, 2015 by jkelley9

[No Mulligans]

2 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

You both may have missed my point. It would be silly of me to think otherwise. But my point was is how the litigation itself reads. It's a point of interest really, on how that "became a law." If I broke something, I would pay for it, though. 

I would have assumed instead that rather than a LAW, it would be contingent in a mandatory association when purchasing property, OR be an easily supportable statistic from the homeowners insurance databases that would increase the premium naturally from that property because it's more subject to claims. Just like how if you buy a fancy sports car, you'll typically have a higher insurance cost; but that doesn't require any laws to go into effect because of that statistic. 

Again, I'm really not arguing with you here lol. I'm just kinda perplexed.

Eh, now that I'm thinking about it more. I guess it does make perfect sense what y'all said. Just kind of a headscratcher to what you would think would be the right thing to do.

I'd bet there were not any laws/statutes established through legislature.  This is just case law/precedent that results from the outcome of previous litigation.

[Dave325]

Here are a couple of good articles that pretty much defines it... As the homeowner accepts responsibility for the occasional errant golf ball. I especially like the detail of the second article.

 

http://www.ngcoa.org/pdf/errant/9News%20-%20Law%20of%20Errant%20Golf%20Balls.pdf

https://www.cmaa.org/PcsTemplate.aspx?id=37197

 

[ghalfaire]

31 minutes ago, Dave325 said:

Here are a couple of good articles that pretty much defines it... As the homeowner accepts responsibility for the occasional errant golf ball. I especially like the detail of the second article.

 

http://www.ngcoa.org/pdf/errant/9News%20-%20Law%20of%20Errant%20Golf%20Balls.pdf

https://www.cmaa.org/PcsTemplate.aspx?id=37197

 

I liked the articles (I live on a golf course).  But they don't dwell on what is "reasonable care" on the golfer's part to ensure they don't damage anyone or their property.  So a word of caution here is that you can be held liable for damage you do if you are not taking "reasonable care".  It can be difficult to determine just where your lack of skill ends and your lack of taking reasonable care begins.  But any one can sue anyone so the gray areas between you're clearly just making a poor shot and where you deliberately hit into a group because they are slow and you're pissed is where  lawyers get rich.  So be careful out there as it is not only a difficult game, it can be dangerous.

[gregsandiego]

There's a golf course where the parking lot is just to the right of the first fairway. Separating the fairway and lot is the access road to the pro shop. 

One day, a ball comes flying off the first tee, hits the rear window of one car and shatteres it, ricochets into the windshield of another car and cracks that, then bounces and hits a golfer in the head as he is unloading his clubs. He has to be taken to the hospital. 

After surveying the damage, the golf pro asks each golfer as he walks off the ninth green if anyone hit a slice of the first tee. After numerous negative replies, the pro finally finds his culprit. The golfer admits that, yes, indeed, he hit his first tee shot to the right, but it went out-of-bounds, he and the rest of his group didn't bother looking for it. 

The pro explains about the two car windows and the golfer in the hospital. By the time he finishes re-creating the scene, the entire foursome is visibly upset, and the golfer who hit the errant shot moans,""Oh, that's terrible. What can I do?"

The pro says, "You should probably trying rolling your hands a little to the right to strengthen your grip."

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/best-golf-jokes

 

[Goose99]

I don't play golf.  I signed into this site because I live near a golf course, was searching for information related to golf course liability, stumbled upon this thread and thought I may be able to offer some perspective to golfers on this important question.  Yes, I'm an attorney, no, this isn't legal advice, it's just my observations, but yes, I have been involved in matters in Maryland concerning golfer and golf course liability. The law varies by state, so my Maryland experience may not apply to you.  But I will say that the relevant legal principles here are pretty common.

First, in Maryland and many other states, a person is liable for conditions that he creates on his property that cause physical things to enter upon the property of another.  Such things could be water that you've diverted off of your property that floods a neighbor's property, a rivet that flies out of your factory window and into a schoolyard, or a golf ball that sails off your golf course and into a road or neighborhood.  A few states have specific laws exempting golf courses, but by and large, golf courses are no different than any other business in this regard.  Golf clubs have no special allowance to cause things to leave their property and enter a neighbor's property. 

Second, when a golf ball leaves the course's property and enters another property, that is a trespass regardless of whether that was a mistake.  People who cause a trespass are liable for the trespass.  This can be true of the trespasser (the golfer) or an aider and abettor, such as a golf club that was on notice that its golfers regularly hit golf balls onto neighboring property yet continued to allow golf play to proceed as usual. 

Third, "assumption of the risk" is typically not a defense to trespass.  Simply put, assumption of the risk does not trump property rights.  Even if the golf course were built before the road or housing development next door, that fact, alone, does not entitle the club to property rights over adjoining land in the form of some buffer easement where errant balls are allowed to fall.  We wouldn't want such a rule.  Otherwise, each time you buy property, you would first have to determine whether your neighbors had tended to use your property as some sort of buffer zone for their rifle range, as a place where rivets land when the thing they're manufacturing explodes, or as an undocumented dump where they take their tree trimmings.  It would provide perverse incentives for individuals and businesses to trespass, since they could then gain dominion over other people's property.  Only in extreme cases, under adverse possession and similar laws, is that ever allowed. 

And with golf courses, the balls often damage homes that are not even next to the course, but on the other side of a road, whose owners can't even see the course.  Just how far would we demand this zone of enhanced golf course buffer intrusion extend?  In short, if a golf club needs a larger buffer, it should offer to buy neighboring property at fair market value, not get it for free under an assumption of the risk theory.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, people tend to live along golf courses because they either play golf or just like the view.  Golf clubs benefit by having nearby, dedicated clientele, or folks who just keep an eye on the course after hours.  Part of my involvement in this issue has been talking with community associations and golf clubs about working to mutually resolve these liability problems.  It is unrealistic for a golf club to absolve itself of all responsibility, or from a duty to take measures to reduce particular problem areas where neighboring property is routinely damaged. 

At the same time, however, if neighbors truly want zero risk of damage, or full compensations for each and every incident, then the golf course that they supposedly love will probably be forced to close down and be replaced by something less bucolic.  One middle ground is for the club and the neighbors to come to an agreement limiting club liability to a certain, reasonable amount each year (to be held in escrow by the club), and accessed by neighbors in accordance with some priority system set up by the community association or neighborhood coalition.  Often, such a pool of money can be established by the club for pennies per tee time, or a few dollars per member.

The advantage to the club is that such an agreement typically absolves its individual members of liability (absent intentional acts), which can be an attractive selling point, and makes its own liability limits more certain.  The advantage to neighbors is that replaces the need to chase down individuals golfers or fight with the club/insurers over each instance, and also allows the club to continue functioning economically.

Sorry for the long post, but my hope is that this helps provide some helpful food for thought on the issue from someone who has experienced it.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 12/24/2015 at 0:43 PM, Patch said:

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. 

Some interesting points. First, let me say that I've played quite a few courses with housing along them and have never come even close to hitting a house. Not bragging because I have ended up OB in someone's back yard, but all it cost me was a stroke, not money! Maybe the courses I played had some sense about how far away from the fairway to site the housing.

I think the "implied consent" idea has some merit. Living on a golf course and griping about golf balls flying at your house is basically the same as buying a house near a major airport and then bitching about the noise of the planes!

As far as the decision for the homeowner's association, that sounds like a bad decision by the jury if you have described it correctly. What on earth is a golf course supposed to do about errant ball flight?

And that homeowner was very nice with your Son in Law. It seems to me that for homes located on golf courses, the homeowner's insurance policies should include protection from damage from errant golf balls. This is just common sense, no?

[Patch]

1 hour ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Some interesting points. First, let me say that I've played quite a few courses with housing along them and have never come even close to hitting a house. Not bragging because I have ended up OB in someone's back yard, but all it cost me was a stroke, not money! Maybe the courses I played had some sense about how far away from the fairway to site the housing.

I think the "implied consent" idea has some merit. Living on a golf course and griping about golf balls flying at your house is basically the same as buying a house near a major airport and then bitching about the noise of the planes!

As far as the decision for the homeowner's association, that sounds like a bad decision by the jury if you have described it correctly. What on earth is a golf course supposed to do about errant ball flight?

And that homeowner was very nice with your Son in Law. It seems to me that for homes located on golf courses, the homeowner's insurance policies should include protection from damage from errant golf balls. This is just common sense, no?

Yes, home insurance should include some sort of coverage for golf ball damage. But I would also say that "common sense" is two way street. Golfers cause the damage. Not the home owner, sitting in their home, that is just there. 

I know when I go to the golf course, anything I personally do, I am responsible for it. That would include both the good, or the bad. 

It's a can of worms to be sure. I read an article several months ago where a golfer hit a child who was playing in her back yard. The golfer was  a regular, and took weekly instruction from the course's teaching pro. In this instance the home was there before the golf course by several years. The home owner's insurance company paid the little girl's medical/rehab bills. Then the same insurance company went after the golfer, the owners of the course, including the their teaching pro who the golfer had been taking instruction from. Basically it was big money lawyers going after little money lawyers. A settlement was reached, but not publically disclosed. This is how goofy things can get. 

[Club Rat]

I used to play a muni which was bordered by a very busy parkway which many golfers had errantly peppered. One day I cut one loose and proceeded to the area to search for the ball.

As I walked towards the street I was greeted by a police officer who asked me if I was playing a Titleist ball which I responded, yes.

Expecting bad news, he proceeds to tell me "my ball was out of bounds and I needed to head back to the tee box to play again"

I told the officer thanks for locating my errant shot and no need to re-tee as I had piped my provisional don the middle.

He smiled and we parted company. Whew......

I always felt anyone who unfortunately causes property damage should offer to pay for damages as the "etiquette of the game"

[Golfingdad]

On December 24, 2015 at 0:38 PM, DaveP043 said:

... 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.  

This is exactly correct for at least one (very, very ritzy) neighborhood in my area.  The neighborhood is covered by a "Golf Ball Easement" which indemnifies the course of any damage.  I have a copy (I'll share if anybody really cares to read it) and I've not seen anything within it that mentions the golfers, so I don't know what kind of recourse a homeowner might have against the golfer, but they have no grounds against the course.

[boogielicious]

11 hours ago, Goose99 said:

I don't play golf.  I signed into this site because I live near a golf course, was searching for information related to golf course liability, stumbled upon this thread and thought I may be able to offer some perspective to golfers on this important question.  Yes, I'm an attorney, no, this isn't legal advice, it's just my observations, but yes, I have been involved in matters in Maryland concerning golfer and golf course liability. The law varies by state, so my Maryland experience may not apply to you.  But I will say that the relevant legal principles here are pretty common.

 

Great post and thanks for the information @Goose99. One question I have is about the course putting up netting. If the course does this to protect a house, does the homeowner have issue with the view being changed? Can they prevent it?

[Braivo]

On 12/24/2015 at 6:39 PM, Patch said:

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. 

I really do not enjoy playing courses lined with houses for many reasons, but one being that my occasional errant shot can be really, really bad. This affects my game because on holes lined with houses I play tentative, I am not enjoying the game. 

My home course has one hole where magnificent homes come into play down the left side of a difficult par 5. I never use drive off the tee because the occasional pull left puts me right into those houses. It changes how I play. 

On a different note, these beautiful homes get peppered with balls all day, I have no idea why someone with that kind of money would choose such a terrible lot, there are better spots on the golf course that reduce the risk of golf balls incoming. 

On 12/24/2015 at 8:28 PM, Psyber said:

Florida law states that the homeowner is responsible. 

This makes things easy for such a large golf state. Makes sense. 

On 12/25/2015 at 0:18 PM, Pendragon said:

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. 

I have only caused damage to a house one time, I asked the homeowner if I could pay and he declined to accept. He said it comes with the territory. 

[Grinde6]

This happened the other night at league.  We were on one of the holes lined with houses.  One of the guys takes a rip with his driver and pulls it badly into one of the windows of the house.  The hole has a sign on the tee box saying "golfers are responsible for any damage to houses".  The golfer goes over to assess the damage and the homeowner comes out.  The golfer says "I know the sign says I am liable for the window, let me know how much it will cost and I will pay for it", the homeowner says "what sign??"  He didn't even know it was there and told the golfer that everyone that owns a home along the course pays a little more per year because of situations like this.  We get back to the clubhouse and the golfer finds one of the attorneys because he is still shaken up.  The attorney says that the sign would never hold up in court (he's had a case with this same situation before), its there to protect the course from being sued, and that the homeowner assumes the risk.

This is in MN.  Just thought I would offer some perspective. 

[newtogolf]

Laws vary state to state as do Homeowner agreements.  When I lived in VA on a golf course we waived all rights to pursue damages from the golf course unless we could prove the damage was intentional and not incidental.  

My home course is built within a housing development.  The houses have an arrangement with the course to put money in escrow for repairs to homes damaged by golf balls.  What isn't covered is damage to cars parked on the street and driving on the roads, in those instances the homeowner and golfer are responsible.  There are a number of roads that parallel the course and while there are trees to help protect balls from leaving the course they aren't thick enough (especially in the early spring and fall) to act as a real barrier.  

I questioned the course why there weren't nets along the perimeter and they told me home owners decided they didn't want the nets.  It seems unfair to members of the course that we're being assigned liability for damages but did not get any say in the methods the course utilizes to prevent balls from leaving the course.  

Bottom line is make sure you're aware of what liabilities you're accepting when you play a course that is lined with homes and roads.  

[Golfingdad]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Laws vary state to state as do Homeowner agreements.  When I lived in VA on a golf course we waived all rights to pursue damages from the golf course unless we could prove the damage was intentional and not incidental.

But if it was, wouldn't your recourse be directly with the person who caused the damage, and not the course?

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But if it was, wouldn't your recourse be directly with the person who caused the damage, and not the course?

Yes, it would be the equivalent of vandalism, in which case the golfer is 100% responsible.  

[Gator Hazard]

I blasted the side of a house the other day with an errant 5 hybrid shot.  Best part is the neighbor of house next to them was out doing some yard work when ball went over her head (well over her head). I called out "far right!!" She gave me a look and then went inside. Apparently she didn't want to take a chance with my next shot. So awkward but funny at the same time. Hey, it's a tight fairway and its golf. Those people in house must have jumped when heard the thwack if at home. No damage was done, except for my pride. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Gator Hazard

[phillyk]

A buddy of mine told me a story of when he accidentally sliced a ball OB into a house.  His provisional went on to do the same thing again at the same house.  The homeowner then came out waving a white flag... haha!