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

[dave s]

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

Florida law states that the homeowner is responsible. 

Seriously?  I'd like to see that in writing.  Not that I don't believe you, but I paid for a kitchen window of a golf course home my son obliterated in FLORIDA.

dave

[Groucho Valentine]

15 minutes ago, dave s said:

Seriously?  I'd like to see that in writing.  Not that I don't believe you, but I paid for a kitchen window of a golf course home my son obliterated in FLORIDA.

dave

It makes sense, since so many florida homes are made along existing courses or the courses themselves are part of planned communities. 

[Gator Hazard]

I am very glad that my house sits tucked back and is protected by a very large oak. We have a good amount of backyard before you even reach the pool lanai; that too is guarded by the oak tree. You really really have to mess up to hit my house and taking out glass is not probable (to my knowledge my actual home has never been hit since I have lived there). My neighbor across the fairway however gets his lanai screen peppered with golf balls often enough. We are basically 30 yards from the green and he is sitting back about 30 yards or more from fairway so you really have to pull it to hit his lanai. As bad a golfer as I am I have never come close to hitting it. He pays for the repairs. That can get costly after a while. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Gator Hazard

[Aflighter]

52 minutes ago, dave s said:

Seriously?  I'd like to see that in writing.  Not that I don't believe you, but I paid for a kitchen window of a golf course home my son obliterated in FLORIDA.

dave

Years ago we were playing just inside NC near Calabash on coast and one of our guys duck hooked one right into a window like 200 yds out and of course one of the rangers were near and came up and asked for homeowners insurance. Some reason the golfers homeowners paid for it instead of the homeowner.Think he got screwed over.

[bplewis24]

On 12/24/2015 at 3:39 PM, Patch said:

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. 

Wow, did not see that coming.  Very interesting.  I suspect on appeal that rationale wouldn't hold up.  Especially if there is other relevant case law that contradicts it.

[Goose99]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2015 at 9:02 PM, ghalfaire said:

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.

I think you're confusing legal principles, which is my fault for not making it more clear.  Of course a person who buys a home next to a golf course assumes some level of risk, as we all do whenever we get in a car, go for a walk, etc.  The first question of law is whether the assumption rises to the point of being a bar to recovery from the person or entity that negligently caused the damage.  The answer is always, it depends.  It may be reasonable for a homeowner to survey the scene and believe that berms, tress and relative distance from the actual field of play creates little risk, particularly if that person isn't a golfer.  And people selling a home rarely disclose how frequently their home gets hit.

But the larger point is that assumption of the risk is a potential bar to a claim of negligence.  It has nothing to do with a claim of trespass.  One does not assume away property rights in this manner.  While a person may ultimately lose on an assumption of the risk theory if she were to sue a golfer or club for negligence (and cases such as this exist, and go both ways), relatively fewer people think to bring cases on a trespass theory.  Those that do tend to be more successful from what I have seen.  Indeed, few reported cases exist on golf damage and trespass, because often the golfer, the club (or its lawyers) recognize that they have a problem defending against such a theory and settle the claim before litigation, or at least before trial.

Again, while I have nothing against golfers or golf clubs and want to see them thrive, I would not want a rule to develop that says that a business or individual, simply by being obvious and brazen about causing stuff in their control and on their property to fly onto neighboring property, earns some sort of special dominion over neighboring property or some special liability protection.  That's a perverse incentive, when what the law should do is encourage folks to keep their activities on their own property.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.  Good luck with your golf game.  While I've dabbled in golf law mostly as a pro bono accommodation to local neighborhoods, I actually have a real law practice to which I have to attend (white collar criminal defense...much less fun than golf law, and no, not all convicted white collar criminals go to a golf-club-style minimum security prison).  So, I'm not sure when I'll find time to make my way back on this forum.  But I appreciate the discussion and thank you for letting me participate in this forum.  To the extent I've contributed anything, I hope it's helping folks think through creative solutions for golf clubs and nearby homes to work together, since they're ultimately in a symbiotic relationship. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Goose99

[Lihu]

21 hours ago, bplewis24 said:

Wow, did not see that coming.  Very interesting.  I suspect on appeal that rationale wouldn't hold up.  Especially if there is other relevant case law that contradicts it.

It's strange. I wonder if the banker was guided by the plaintiff's lawyer into admitting that " He knew he could hit an errant shot at any time. . ." ?

Of course, being a golfer, we never know that the next shot will be errant, but there is always a possibility?

[Fourputt]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

It's strange. I wonder if the banker was guided by the plaintiff's lawyer into admitting that " He knew he could hit an errant shot at any time. . ." ?

Of course, being a golfer, we never know that the next shot will be errant, but there is always a possibility?

But of course the homeowner never had a clue that golfers sometimes hit errant shots.    Really?  

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

But of course the homeowner never had a clue that golfers sometimes hit errant shots.    Really?  

Exactly, what happened to the defense on this one?

[newtogolf]

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

Exactly, what happened to the defense on this one?

Every day someone goes to a doctor or hires a lawyer that finished last in his class.  There are significant expenses in taking something to court, if the damages can be covered by other insurance or are likely less than the legal fees to defend then it's best to settle.  

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Every day someone goes to a doctor or hires a lawyer that finished last in his class.  There are significant expenses in taking something to court, if the damages can be covered by other insurance or are likely less than the legal fees to defend then it's best to settle.  

Yeah, I can see the bank CEO just wanting to get past this incident too. Maybe he felt bad for the lady as well. Several thousand dollars is probably not going to affect him at much, but it's a really expensive round for him.

[yaozerus]

Homeowner on a golf course here, recently hit, window shattered. found this thread, I may be biased. Regardless of the law, ethically, you all talk about homeowner assumption of risk, what about a golfer's assumption of risk when taking up the sport? You do it for entertainment, homeowners are just trying to live their lives. Why should your entertainment trump someone's livelihood? With home prices so high and inventory so low, it's not like the houses near golf courses can just sit empty, someone will have to live with this problem.

[Dewdman42]

if you buy or build a house on a golf course, where golf balls will be flying around, its your responsibility to cover damage, just the same as if you buy or build a house in a hurricane or flood zone.   Get insurance or factor it into the cost of ownership.  It should not be the responsibility of the golfer period.    we are talking about houses built on a golf course, not a golf course built on a suburban city block.   Golf is a game where golf balls are known to fly around and in some locations it will be quite common for balls to fly into certain locations...  why is there a house even remotely close to that?  It's your responsibility.  

I know some owners may be frustrated about this, but they are the one that chose to put their house in a. place where golf balls are likely to fly.   I will never check on a house if I see my ball go there and even if I heard a big bang or shattering glass, I would go my merry way without a single concern about it.  Fortunately that hasn't happened yet (that i know of).   It's not my problem that you put your house there.  Get insurance or set a budget for it, or move somewhere else.  This is a a golf course.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Dewdman42

[ChiTown]

If you’re buying a house already on a golf course, then the homeowner knows the risk — a lot like you can’t buy a house near an airport and then complain about the noise. But I’m not sure that completely absolves the hitter from any liability. If I put up a fence, and the golfer decides to climb over it, that’s clearly trespassing. But let’s be honest. If you’re a golfer and you manage to cause property damage the right thing to do is to offer to pay for the repair or at least a portion of it.

But don’t forget in 2022 a family won $5M from Indian Pond country club because balls kept landing in their yard. So the family couldn’t really enjoy their backyard etc. In that case, however, the course was built after the homes were already there. So the designer was negligent and the club found liable 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, ChiTown said:

But don’t forget in 2022 a family won $5M from Indian Pond country club because balls kept landing in their yard. So the family couldn’t really enjoy their backyard etc. In that case, however, the course was built after the homes were already there. So the designer was negligent and the club found liable 

Which was then overturned…

[ChiTown]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Which was then overturned…

Yes. Overturned and remanded for a new trial. Do you have an update on the new trial?

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, ChiTown said:

Yes. Overturned and remanded for a new trial. Do you have an update on the new trial?

No, just pointing out that they didn't "win" $5M, and some of the facts re: timing are why:

In 2001 Indian Pond recorded an amendment to the declaration of covenants and restrictions that applied to certain “golf course lots,” including the lot that the plaintiffs later purchased. The golf course lots became subject to the right and easement contained in the original declaration allowing golfers to retrieve errant golf balls on unimproved areas of those residential lots. The amended declaration also provided that golf course lots were subject to Indian Pond’s “right to reserve or grant easements for the benefit of the owner of the golf course for the reasonable and efficient operation of the golf course and its facilities in a customary and usual manner.” There were other restrictions on development of the golf course lots; specifically, no pools, swing sets, play sets, or clotheslines were allowed without Indian Pond’s consent. Homeowners must minimize any adverse impacts to the golf course.

When the plaintiffs bought their home on the 15th fairway in 2017, their deed expressly incorporated restrictions and easements of record that were in force. Presumably the plaintiffs had to acknowledge that living on Country Club Way alongside a golf course with specific easements in favor of the course owner and players meant they would be subject to the challenges associated with the game of golf, including errant shots. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs sued Indian Pond Country Club for trespass in July of 2018, 15 months after purchasing their lot.

[klineka]

On 8/10/2023 at 12:12 AM, yaozerus said:

You do it for entertainment, homeowners are just trying to live their lives. 

You chose to purchase a home where this was a possibility though. And you knew that when you purchased the home. (Unless in the very rare circumstances that the houses were there first prior to a golf course and the golf course was put in after the fact)

There are significantly more homes available not on golf courses than there are homes that are on golf courses, so that is a risk you knowingly agree to when purchasing said home.

 

On 8/10/2023 at 12:12 AM, yaozerus said:

Why should your entertainment trump someone's livelihood? 

I don't think you're using the word livelihood right. Livelihood means "the way someone earns the money people need to pay for food, a place to live, clothing, etc"

Your house isn't the way that you earn money for a living, right?

I also could flip that back onto you though, why should your place of dwelling trump my entertainment? There are far more places of dwelling than there are places where I can partake in golf entertainment.

 

On 8/10/2023 at 12:12 AM, yaozerus said:

With home prices so high and inventory so low, it's not like the houses near golf courses can just sit empty, someone will have to live with this problem.

But you chose to live there, so you have to deal with the repercussions, just like someone living near the ocean has to deal with hurricanes.