Jump to content

Goose99

Member
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goose99

  1. Goose99

    Goose99

  2. 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.
  3. Thanks and you're very welcome. Your right to a particular view can be a complex subject. The basic common law is that one does not have a covenant to a view. Some local jurisdictions alter that rule based on a variety of zoning factors, such as maximum building height, fence restrictions, etc. So, whatever the golf club builds would need to meet whatever local standards are in place, but would not necessarily need to factor in your view unless you're in one of the rare (I think) jurisdictions that actually does provide property owners a right to a view. Your question reminds me of a situation I encountered where a club that had been repeatedly sued was forced by its insurer erect a giant, ugly fence. This is a good lesson in the "be careful what you ask for" category. This illustrates why it's typically better for surrounding homeowners to work with the club to arrive at landscaping and subtle course corrections, and even offer to share in the cost of those changes, rather than come in, guns blazing, with threatened lawsuits.
  4. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...