One factor being overlooked in this debate is golf technology. It has been previously mentioned that golf courses should address the potential of property damage at the design stage. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority do. HOWEVER, given the sizable increases in golf technology over the last twenty years, poor golfers are now able to hit the ball with more power, more consistently. In the past, when a ball was toed or heeled, it did not go very far as the sweet spot of the club was very small and thus very little power was transferred to the ball. Now, when a golfer toes or heels a shot, it can carry almost as much power as a "pured" shot. Unfortunately, this toe/heel shot will not be going straight with that power - it will be going abroad. Many of the areas now being hit would have been laughably out of the question twenty-five years ago. So while golf technology has been great for the game, making it more accessible and enjoyable to the average golfer, it has also had the unintended consequence of ushering in an era of long-distance errant golf balls.
I believe that this raises the question, where does the buck stop? Should the golf course be held responsible because it creates the opportunity for damage? Should the manufacturer of the technology be held responsible because they provided the tools for the damage? You can imagine the policy problems that would arise if either of these was established as precedent - the classic 'flood gates' argument. That is why the golfer will, typically, be held responsible for damage caused by their golf ball - more a legal reality than anything else.
However, it would be unjust for the courts to adhere to such a black and white notion of responsibility. There will be situations where the risk is so great or the design of the golf course so negligent, that the court will be required to intervene. Hence why home owners have been known to be successful against golf courses where the number of golf balls is beyond that what should be expected by a home owner on a golf course. The grand question for such cases is, as always, how many golf balls qualifies as "expected"? Ten a year? twenty? two hundred? The ambiguity is maintained because such cases are completely contextual and the court requires flexibility to deal with them.
I think, in consideration of the growth of golf technology, it is best to keep in mind the words of Uncle Ben:
"With great power comes great responsibility."
It is our choice to walk onto a golf course. We know how far we can hit it, we know how consistently we can hit it, and we know how much damage can occur when things go wrong. We have to weigh these factors and determine if we are comfortable with the risks involved. If not, there are a lot of sports that do not involve the breaking of $1000 windows.
|