Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOT
So why isn't the government liable for building the road that drunk drivers use to cause accidents? People make their own choices and when they do they are responsible. This is one of the biggest problems with people now a days instead of taking responsibility for their stupidity they look at someone else to blame.
|
I would argue that if you're golfing drunk your level of liability would go up. The difference between golf and driving (aside from teeing off of course) is that driving an automobile is a licensed activity where everyone on the road is to meet a certain standard of ability. Additionally, cars generally run in the same way, if you turn the wheel right, the car will turn right. In golf however, if you swing the club seemingly the same way you did on the previous swing, your ball can go in a different direction. Slight alterations in movement, rate of speed, tilt of your head, or foot, where when driving would create no different in outcome, can cause a drastic different outcome on the golf course.
I think the crux of the issue is contextual, it's not 100% the home owner, not 100% the course, and it's not 100% the golfer. It's a combination of the three parties involved, and to what degree is going to vary from case to case. Sometimes the homeowner will be 0%, sometimes the course 0% and sometimes the golfer 0%. It all depends on what reasonable steps were taken by the parties.
If the golfer took all reasonable steps to protect the house, and something still happened, then they may not be liable at all (then again maybe they will be).
People are talking about different holes in various courses around Calgary. I've never golfed any of these courses, nor walked them, nor ever seen them (except landing at YYC) so I really can't comment to the details of each hole in relation to houses, and protections available.
That said,
it's contextual
it depends