There are lots of court cases where the golf course was found to be liable for private nuisance in allowing errant golf balls to enter adjacent properties. The courts seem to take this track when the number of balls or the nature of the damage is unusually large. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in
Lakeview Gardens reviewed some of those cases and described them as follows:
Quote:
|
There are many cases where golf courses which permitted balls to escape have been found to be private nuisances. However, a close examination of them discloses in each case much more serious property damage or threat of property damage or injury than here. In Carley v. Willow Park Golf Course Ltd., 2002 ABQB 813 (CanLII), [2003] 2 W.W.R. 659 (Alta. Q.B.), the plaintiffs, whose house was adjacent to a driving range, found themselves unable to use their yard, counted 30 balls in their yard in one 10 day period, and 174 balls, 88 balls and 176 balls in one year periods. In Douglas Lake Cattle Co. v. Mount Paul Golf Course (SPM) Inc., 2001 BCSC 566 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 566, [2001] B.C.J. No. 894 (QL), the plaintiff collected 2,577 balls in a period of one year and five days, and balls frequently damaged equipment and narrowly missed employees and customers. In Segal v. Derrick Golf & Winter Club (1977), 76 D.L.R. (3d) 746 (Alta. S.C. (T.D.)), over 200 balls in one year made the plaintiff’s yard unusable for family and children. In Transcona Country Club v. Transcona Golf Club, 2002 MBQB 113 (CanLII), 2002 MBQB 113, [2002] M.J. No. 163 (QL), a building was hit by golf balls on almost a daily basis until a fence was built. Although the trial judge found a private nuisance and awarded damages, no injunction was asked for or granted. The respondent in this case was not affected as severely as were the plaintiffs in any of these cases.
|
So whether the property owner can hold the golf course depends on a few factors. A property owner will have difficulty having the golf course held liable for a single incident.
Considering whether the property owner could hold the golfer responsible in court is probably even less clear. I haven't looked very hard, but there weren't any reported decisions that popped up. I would suggest if the golfer's actions went well beyond what you would usually expect in a typical golf game (like the Nova Scotia Happy Gilmore golfer guy) you could could argue that the damages that result go beyond the risk that may have been assumed by the homeowner. If you live 150 yards out on the right side of a par 4, finding a few balls in your yard probably isn't out of the ordinary. If you live behind a tee box and find a golfer hitting balls through your window, you might have a case that the golfer should be legally responsible for the damage he caused. That's not at all part of the game and would probably not be a reasonable risk assumed by a homeowner adjacent to a golf course.