Hitting a house with a golf ball - Responsibility Debate

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Mass_nerder

They do place nets along the course, but only in places where it would be common for the ball to stray off the course. Places where the fairway might dog leg, or behind the green.
They can't line the entire course with nest to stop the occasional slice in the middle of the fairway.

Yep I agree, I edited my original post to take that into consideration. I pictured houses right along the fairway. Then people were saying how the courses they play have the houses way off the course.

In the end it would be contextual depending on the fencing, the hole itself, how far away house it from the course, etc

[jar_e]

Isn't this like saying "If I drive my car off the road and hit a house, is there any responsibility on the homeowner for having their house near a road?"

Of course not. Of course its the golfers fault.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by edn88

When I golfed at Country Hills I played with a few lawyers who insisted that you were not obligated as a golfer to pay for a window that you broke accidentally.

And I found this online... not sure if it should be considered gospel or not

http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Feb/1/126692.html

There is also the "voluntary assumption of risk" argument. That being said, if there is a sign that specifically says you are responsible, that probably negates it.

To be honest, if I hit a ball and knowingly caused damage, I'd pay for it, but i'm noit going to go snooping to make sure I didn't cause any.

[burn_this_city]

What about smashing the back window of a car parked 20 feet off the fairway by someone foraging for lost balls?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Isn't this like saying "If I drive my car off the road and hit a house, is there any responsibility on the homeowner for having their house near a road?"

Of course not. Of course its the golfers fault.

Out of curiosity, if I'm at a hockey game and get hit with the puck, do I sue the hockey player?

If I'm at a ball game and get hit with a foul ball, do I sue the batter?

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I don't know what it's like in Alberta, but here where there are houses by golf courses there are nets set up to catch any errant balls that are hit.

I think that's pretty universal that they put up nets where people have a tendency to hit way off course and nail a house.

I'd never own a house on a golf course just because I'd be scared to let my kids play out in the back yard.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Out of curiosity, if I'm at a hockey game and get hit with the puck, do I sue the hockey player?

If I'm at a ball game and get hit with a foul ball, do I sue the batter?

Well that just really #(@_* up my argument doesn't it

[Yanda]

Anything but being 100% responsible is a joke. You caused damage to someone property and are at fault.

90% of these cases its some hackjob that doesnt know what hes doing, doesnt practice at the driving range and hooks it towards the houses.

There has been alot more damage at the start or end of a golf season than in the middle

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

That is a terrible analogy. It would be the equivalent of expecting someone to pay for kicking up a rock and cracking your windshield.

How does that make sense.
I'm going to guess that you think someone doing the rear ending should pay for the damages, and that the person kicking up the rock shouldn't right?

But if you think that from my analogy of rear ending someone it logically follows that kicking up a rock should also pay, then that implys that you think there is an equivalent level of culpability on the part of the rear ender and the rock kicker upper. Which clearly isn't the case becasue you think one should pay and one shouldn't.

I'm basing my position on the responsibility of each party.

The home owner: put themselves into a position where there is potential for damage

Guy who got rear ended: put themselves into a position where there is potential for damage

Guy who got window chipped: put themselves into a postion where there is potential for damage

Seems the same to me.
Now for the other side.

Golfer: voluntarily chose to partake in an activity where through their own carlessness caused damage to someone else

Rear ender: voluntarily chose to partake in an activity where through their own carlessness cause damage to someone else

Rock kicker upper: this one is debatable. They clearly put themselves into a position where they could cause damage to others, but others would say kicking up rocks is an unavoidalbe consequence of driving, where as carelesslly rear ending someone is not.

Let's say you don't think the rock kicker upper has the same level of culpability. Then it doesn't logically follow that my analalogy suggest the rock kicker upper should pay, and your objection to it doesn't make sense.

Let's say you think the rock kicker upper is culpable. Then the level of responsibility of the three is the same, and since I assume you agree the rear ender should pay up, then one of the following is true:

1) You should logically conclude that since the three are equivalent situations all three should pay

2) You don't think the rock kicker upper should pay, and thus are not logically constent, and your arugment about the rock kicker upper is completely irrelevant

[Yanda]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I'd pay for it, but i'm noit going to go snooping to make sure I didn't cause any.

So your "Drop-Ball by Water Hazard" Guy. You act all casual and throw a new ball down and act like you put one in the water hazard until I start making cat calls from my Balcony about how you should put your golf career on hold or explain how much a bucket of balls is at the driving range.

Your really no better than "It was somebody else" Guy.

[HOOT]

Golfer is always responsible for their ball. It's like blaming the guy who gets smacked in the head with your ball because he knew he was on a golf course. Just because the owner of the home knows the dangers of damagers, etc. it doesn't mean it's not on the golfer. Working at a golf course for over 10 years of my life I would say 9 out of 10 golfers will take responsibility for their ball if it breaks a window or causes other damages.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, I'm not sure why there's a debate here.
You hit the ball, you knew there were houses there, why would you not be 100% responsible?

Saying it's the house owners responsibility becasue they built a house there is on the same line as saying that getting rear ended in your car is 50% your fault because you drove your car onto the road where it might get rear ended.

That being said, the person who's house get's hit does have to accept that there is a risk and not be a total dick about it, but they shouldn't have to pay for the damages caused by someone who is voluntarily participating in a leisure activity next to their house.

If you hit a foul in baseball are you going to pay for the windshield of the idiot that parked right behind the backstop because there is a parking spot there?

[blankall]

I think it should be the golf courses responsibility as long as the golfer is not intentionally doing anything stupid.

It's the golf course who is making the money off this after all. If I go golfing I expect to be able to golf in a manner where I'm not constantly having to be cautious about hitting balls off the course. Not everyone is a pro-golfer, and the golf course should set up the course in a manner that accomdates for....golfing.

As for the, "shouldn't have built your house there" argument, I don't buy that argument either. The golf course owns one piece of property and the home owners own another. You should either restrict your activities to your own property or be prepared to compensate your neighbours when you @#@# up theirs. It doesn't matter if there was nooone else around you when you set up the golf course, the property around you still didn't belong to you.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Anything but being 100% responsible is a joke. You caused damage to someone property and are at fault.

90% of these cases its some hackjob that doesnt know what hes doing, doesnt practice at the driving range and hooks it towards the houses.

There has been alot more damage at the start or end of a golf season than in the middle

Originally Posted by Yanda

So your "Drop-Ball by Water Hazard" Guy. You act all casual and throw a new ball down and act like you put one in the water hazard until I start making cat calls from my Balcony about how you should put your golf career on hold or explain how much a bucket of balls is at the driving range.

Your really no better than "It was somebody else" Guy.

It sounds like you should rethink your house location next time you move.

[squiggs96]

My first thought, as mentioned previously, would be what was there first? If there was a golf course going on well before and then houses started to line the fairway, that's an inherent risk the homeowners chose to take. If balls had been going into fields for years, and then they built houses there, why should the golfers be forced to pay for what occurs naturally in most golfers. It's been a while since I played it, but I believe Woodside has some houses really close to some fairways.

My next thought would be on intent. If you purposely try and hit near houses, then you should be responsible. This, obviously, would be tough to prove. Most golfers hit some bad shots. There are very few who are professional and even the top players in the world hit shots that go way right. If Tiger Woods can't control his balls all the time (pun intended), how can the rest of us? Since this is the case, why would they put houses near a course, where they are likely to get hit? Either move the houses far enough back from the course so they won't get hit, or build them close enough that they will, and accept the risk.

As a golfer I have enough things to worry about when I'm on the course, be it grip, ball position, wind, etc., that worrying about not hitting a house shouldn't have to come into the conversation. If I am being negligent, such as hitting near houses on purpose, being drunk, etc. then fine, I'll pay for the window. If I'm in a field of manicured grass and duck hook one into a field where you thought it was a good idea to have a house with windows, I don't feel bad for you. I chose to buy my house away from a golf course. It seems like an avoidable situation to me. Bad golfers have been around since golf started and will continue that way.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Out of curiosity, if I'm at a hockey game and get hit with the puck, do I sue the hockey player?

If I'm at a ball game and get hit with a foul ball, do I sue the batter?

No, but the tickets to each and every MLB baseball venue as well each and every NHL rink have disclaimers printed directly on the ticket advising you that you assume all risk of personal injury.

From one of my Flames tickets from this past season:

"The holder of this ticket assumes all the risks and dangers of personal injury and all other hazards arising from or related in any way to the Event, whether occurring prior to, during or after the event, including specifically (but not exclusively) the danger of being injured by hockey pucks and sticks, other spectators, players, by thrown objects."

On top of this, these stadiums all broadcast verbal warning over the loudspeaker that say basically the same thing. Of course, people who choose to buy or build on a golf course are not subject to any sort of disclaimer and therefore I personally cannot see why the golfer would not be held fully responsible.

Edit: And if you're referring more to attending a local baseball or hockey game and getting hit, I would say "assumed risk" would cancel out any liability on the player. I don't think it's fair to say a home owner should have to "assume the risk" of having golfers hitting balls well out of bounds, causing property damage.

[Yanda]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think it should be the golf courses responsibility

The Courses would just raise the cost of green fees.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by fotze

I am just curious just legally, does having the sign up mean its terms are enforceable. If I put one sign up that says that each golfer owes the course a million dollars at the end of the round does that make it true. Or is it the reasonable standard stuff?

I was thinking that too. What if I put up a sign, or had a flag on my golf bag that said "Houses are responsible for all balls hit onto their property"?

[flylock shox]

I will give two points to the first lawyer who can cite the name of the case involving a cricket pitch that is probably one of the founding cases in this area.

Might be a Denning one, but I'm not sure.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

If you hit a foul in baseball are you going to pay for the windshield of the idiot that parked right behind the backstop because there is a parking spot there?

Hmmm, good point. I suppose I'd have to say no, but if I hit someone's house I'd probably say yes.

The big distinction being that if I'm golfing or playing baseball, the house is a pre-existing feature, I'm partaking in an activity where someone's property is pre-existing, I'm introducing the risk to their property. Yes we could argue that the house doesn't need to be by the golf course, or ball diamond, but I think we can all accept that houses near recrational activities are a pre-existing condition, and that not having houses near by isn't reasonable. I know someone will say, "Well whoever owns the house doesn't have to live in that exact house", but I think the fact that the person who owns the house could live somewhere else is irrelevant because I think it's fair to accept that SOMEONE would live there, and thus liability is related to the house, not the owner.

The car is something that someone put into an area after the fact, and could have reasonably kept out of danger but chose not to, they're introducing the risk, by putting their car into a spot where there is a reasonable chance it could get hit, but the difference between that and the house is that there would have been a reasonable alternative that kept the car out of danger.

That being said, if I fouled a ball off into a windshield, I'd probably offer to pay...or at least go 50-50%