Broken Window or other damage caused by golf ball

[arkstorm]

To clarify, the law is different for intentional tort than for negligence. Despite outcries that I am not backing this up with case law (I do not have westlaw or lexis access), my first year of law school horn book says in no uncertain terms, assumption of the risk is no defense to an intentional tort.

 

This argument is sort of like a bad penny, it keeps coming back up over and over -- but my gist is that you cannot successfully claim an assumption of the risk defense on the hypothetical homeowner because this would be an intentional tort, i.e. trespass.

 

Maybe GA law is different than PA/NJ but I assure you as I have been advised by two separate PA trial level judges and one Federal District Judge that the law in PA and in the 3rd Circuit would hold the golfer liable for damage to the house.

 

Now, if anyone actually had a window broken, or if you were the golfer, and the matter occurred in PA or in NJ give me a call and I'll represent you...then we'll report back to this thread how it all turned out.

[SadTrombone]

To clarify, the law is different for intentional tort than for negligence. Despite outcries that I am not backing this up with case law (I do not have westlaw or lexis access), my first year of law school horn book says in no uncertain terms, assumption of the risk is no defense to an intentional tort.

 

This argument is sort of like a bad penny, it keeps coming back up over and over -- but my gist is that you cannot successfully claim an assumption of the risk defense on the hypothetical homeowner because this would be an intentional tort, i.e. trespass.

 

Maybe GA law is different than PA/NJ but I assure you as I have been advised by two separate PA trial level judges and one Federal District Judge that the law in PA and in the 3rd Circuit would hold the golfer liable for damage to the house.

 

Now, if anyone actually had a window broken, or if you were the golfer, and the matter occurred in PA or in NJ give me a call and I'll represent you...then we'll report back to this thread how it all turned out.

A few things to consider though.

 

A text book is not, in itself, a legal opinion.

 

Without case law to back up your argument (which others ARE producing), your argument isn't holding much water. A friend of mine (we were young.....12?) blocked a drive on the 2nd hole of a local course and broke the window of a car driving by. The car owner wanted his parents to pay for it, it went to court, they never paid a dime. I'm in PA.

 

-mini

[stevepoz]

A recent article:

 

See:

 

http://www.tidesports.com/article/20070624...40383/1039/TS31

 

"In Rehoboth, Mass., Joyce Amaral collected 1,800 golf balls from her property abutting Middlebrook Country Club, then lugged them into court when she sued the club. Ms. Amaral’s house was hit so regularly, her landscapers wore hard hats. Balls set off the burglar alarm and dented her car.

 

Although the club existed decades before the house was built, a court ruled that the balls — and the golfers looking for them — were a trespass. The parties settled this month, with the club agreeing to shorten the No. 9 hole, which should keep the Amaral property out of the line of fire. "

 

Note that this says the court ruled but then the parties settled, so not sure what went on, but:

 

"Most courts, however, instead rule that homeowners assume risk when they move adjacent to a golf course, said Dalton B. Floyd Jr., a South Carolina lawyer whose practice regularly involves golf-related litigation and who has been a consultant to the Professional Golfers Association of America. "

[arkstorm]

A recent article:

 

See:

 

http://www.tidesports.com/article/20070624...40383/1039/TS31

 

"In Rehoboth, Mass., Joyce Amaral collected 1,800 golf balls from her property abutting Middlebrook Country Club, then lugged them into court when she sued the club. Ms. Amaral’s house was hit so regularly, her landscapers wore hard hats. Balls set off the burglar alarm and dented her car.

 

Although the club existed decades before the house was built, a court ruled that the balls — and the golfers looking for them — were a trespass. The parties settled this month, with the club agreeing to shorten the No. 9 hole, which should keep the Amaral property out of the line of fire. "

 

Note that this says the court ruled but then the parties settled, so not sure what went on, but:

 

"Most courts, however, instead rule that homeowners assume risk when they move adjacent to a golf course, said Dalton B. Floyd Jr., a South Carolina lawyer whose practice regularly involves golf-related litigation and who has been a consultant to the Professional Golfers Association of America. "

 

This has been addressed previously in this thread but to clarify, the statement that homeowners assume the risk, etc. is true when they try to sue under a nuisance theory (usually brought against the golf course). Different principles of law apply if a homeowner sues a golfer who hit her house with a ball and did some kind of damage to the house. Under that scenario assumption of the risk does not come in as a defense.

[malibu3]

I just don't see how you can say that a golfer is responsible for damages. I don't buy the whole "well keep it in the fairway" argument. The PGA tour average for fairways hit is around 65%.That means one out of every three tee shots misses. Look a Mickelson, he missed WAY left at the Open and he's a MULTIPLE MAJOR WINNER. When was the last time Tiger found a fairway? And he's THE BEST PLAYER IN THE WORLD!!! If those guys can't keep in the fairway for one round, how do you expect weekend golfers to never miss a fairway.

 

It's plain and simple to me, you know the game of golf and you knew where you bought your house. Saying it's the golfers fault is irresponsible on the homeowners part.

 

I know this probably won't be a popular point of view, but it seems silly to blame golfers. That's what we go out there for, the challenge of the game. If you build your house 250 yards right of and 10 yards of a dogleg right, you should know that you'll be having some Top Flights popping in every now and then. I mean, let's get real here.

 

 

By the way, when is the last time you have seen a PGA player hit an actual house? Do you think that they would stiff the home owner if they busted out a window? I don't think so. I don't expect golfers to hit every fairway but you might want to try to keep it on the course. If you can not, do not play courses with houses on them.

 

 

I can't help but bring up the fact where you talk about the Pros hitting houses and whether they would stiff them on the payment. So for the lawyers here I would like to bring up two items, I thought about how at a baseball game or hockey event your tickets stubs always have a waiver of liability that by coming on the property to watch the event you may be injured etc etc.

 

So let's go this far for this scenario:

One, on tour, lets say someone snap hooks a drive and takes out a guy watching the action and he is blinded in one eye. Obviously this person is on golf course property which is an inherent difference, however he is attending a sanctioned event etc. Is the golf course responsible, the sanctioning body for the event or is the person who made the shot responsible?

 

Second point.

Still on golf course property, the club house is behind the 18th green by only 20 yards or so. Let's say wind carries shot long and takes out the window in the back of the club house. Is the golfer responsible for that as well? Same as the event as a private homeowners residence that is not part of the golf course property?

 

Thanks.

Malibu3

[malibu3]

I just read that article and the quote:

"Some people have become virtual prisoners in their homes. Earla Smith lives at Lookout Mountain Golf Club in Phoenix. Look out, indeed. "

 

That is hilarious. My boss even came out of his office to see what the hell I was laughing at.

;)

 

Malibu3

 

Edit:

This is to much look at this quote:

"“Nobody leaves their business card in the broken glass,†said Joe Jonas, who lives near a course in St. George, Utah. “The one time I did catch the guy, he gave me an address and phone number that turned out to be phony. He was playing in a church outing.â€

[malibu3]

I always find this amusing. You might be morally responsible for damages, but in many jurisdictions, not legally. I researched Missouri law on this a little while ago and found no Missouri cases directly on point, but they seemed to indicate that the golfer would not be at fault (in most cases). If someone can cite cases to the opposite, I would be willing to see it.

 

The above is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.

 

On two of the courses I play in St.Louis, on the tee box's with houses in danger, they have a sign there that indicates you as the golfer are responsible for damages.

Malibu3

[nyhacker]

Fortunately i am not a lawyer, because I think the legal system is severely lacking. I am completely for people taking responsiblity for their own actions. Being a future doctor I would love to see this, however I think the laws need to be altered. I would not say that the HO is liable but therei s clearly an inherent risk to living on a golf course. If someone hits a rock over the fence then they should be liable, but wayward shots are a part of the game. If i could control that shot I would not be there in the first place. Either build homes far enough off the course to be out of play or accept the errant shot. Rant over.

[mohacker]

MOST states have ordinances and laws setting the responsibility with the golfer!