Hitting a house with a golf ball - Responsibility Debate

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't buy that.
There are a lot of courses that doen't have houses lining the course. If you can't keep the ball on the fairway, stay away from narrow house lined courses.

There are lot's of courses I won't play at becasue I'm affraid I might hit a house, do I go anyway, and hope the golf course pays for damages? Nope, I avoid them and I go somewhere where if I hit a bad shot, i won't do any damage.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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

It's not like the car is parked in the outfield, it's parked in a parking stall. I would say the batter should still pay up.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

There are lot's of courses I won't play at becasue I'm affraid I might hit a house, do I go anyway, and hope the golf course pays for damages? Nope, I avoid them and I go somewhere where if I hit a bad shot, i won't do any damage

Seconded. I've skipped entire holes at a course to avoid hitting a house. Yes, I'm that bad a golfer.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

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"?

Doesn't work that way.
The golf course is letting you on their property and has every right to enforce conditions upon doing so, such as placing liability for hitting houses on you. You paid their green fees and played the round, and thus agreed to their conditions. You can't unilaterally absolve yourself of those conditions, no matter what your bag says.

Part of the conditions for a contract are that there has to be agreement, and some sort of value.

You've paid up, which represents the value, and by paying have implicitly agreed to their conditions including your liability for hitting houses.

Putting that sign on your bag doesn't involve any sort of value, nor is there agreement, so there is nothing binding about it.

[Knut]

I always wondered why Golf courses do not offer a $10 House damage insurance or something like that. Voluntary to pay into, but if you hit a house and you bought it the course will pay. The course would likely make extra money on this, and I know i would buy it (as I occasionally duck hook a shot so bad i end up 200 yards off the fairway).

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

It's not like the car is parked in the outfield, it's parked in a parking stall. I would say the batter should still pay up.

I think there's definitly a debate to be had there, but that's because i think there's a difference between houses next to golf courses and someone parking a car behind a backstop.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I don't buy that.
There are a lot of courses that doen't have houses lining the course. If you can't keep the ball on the fairway, stay away from narrow house lined courses.

There are lot's of courses I won't play at becasue I'm affraid I might hit a house, do I go anyway, and hope the golf course pays for damages? Nope, I avoid them and I go somewhere where if I hit a bad shot, i won't do any damage.

In the end, the golf course is a business making a profit. They design the course. They should bear the risk of something as reasonably foreseeable as a golf ball leaving the course.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Yanda

The Courses would just raise the cost of green fees.

How much extra would that actually work out to per person? 5 cents?

[Prototype]

I can't hit the broad side of a barn with my golf shot, so I'm no help here. Play through.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Doesn't work that way.
The golf course is letting you on their property and has every right to enforce conditions upon doing so, such as placing liability for hitting houses on you. You paid their green fees and played the round, and thus agreed to their conditions. You can't unilaterally absolve yourself of those conditions, no matter what your bag says.

Part of the conditions for a contract are that there has to be agreement, and some sort of value.

You've paid up, which represents the value, and by paying have implicitly agreed to their conditions including your liability for hitting houses.

Putting that sign on your bag doesn't involve any sort of value, nor is there agreement, so there is nothing binding about it.

All of that makes sense. I didn't think my sign or flag would hold any weight, but was curious why the course's sign would. Now I know.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Hesla

I always wondered why Golf courses do not offer a $10 House damage insurance or something like that. Voluntary to pay into, but if you hit a house and you bought it the course will pay. The course would likely make extra money on this, and I know i would buy it (as I occasionally duck hook a shot so bad i end up 200 yards off the fairway).

Courses will sell hole in one insurance in case you hit the best shot of your life, so you don't have to buy everyone else a drink, even though I think everyone on the course should buy you a drink.

These same courses won't sell you window insurance in case you hit the worst shot of your life and break a window 200 yards off course.

This does not seem right.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by blankall

In the end, the golf course is a business making a profit. They design the course. They should bear the risk of something as reasonably foreseeable as a golf ball leaving the course.

I disagree completely.

It's a business that's providing people with a space to engage in a potentially dangerous past time.
People are paying to engage in what in an activity in which their actions can forseeably cause damage to someone's property or injury.

Hockey rinks, race tracks, ski hills, all do this, but they aren't liable if a puck flys out off the ice and hits someone, they aren't liable if someone drives to hard and crashes their car, and they aren't liable if if someone runs into another skiier.

Providing a place for an activity shouldn't necessarily equate to liability for the actions of the people performing that activity.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Just incase it's been lost in the shuffle, I've argued from the start that the golfer is responsible, but not 100%

the percentage of responsibility should be contextual depending on the hole, placement of the houses, etc (theoretically if a golfer purposely hit a ball to break a window then yes 100%, if the course has a net up and the net is shabby and the ball goes through it and still breaks a window then 0%, however it would probably lie somewhere in between with the golfer paying north of 50%)

[troutman]

Originally Posted by 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.

Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, that cricket was in the public interest and stray cricket balls were not a nuisance.

The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 6 April 1977. Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce LJJ held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs".[2] The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest"[3] However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".[3]

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze

But how is entering into a contract with the golf course bound you to a contract with a homeowner?

Just arguing for arguing sake, I agree you will need to pay, but I am not sure what makes it that way. I thought it was just because you damaged the house, not because you paid the golf course.

Because as part of the conditinos of playing you've agreed to accept responsibilty for hitting somene's house.

You don't need to enter into a contract with the homeowner to accept liability for damage to their property.

[DownhillGoat]

Because said damaging projectile was launched from the property of the golf course?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

[QUOTE=kunkstyle;3113729]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Because said damaging projectile was launched from the property of the golf course?

That's probably part of it too.
You're on the course's property and there is a potential for liabilty/damages to the course, so they are well within their rights to make you agree to accept their liability as a condition of using their property.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze

I agree, but I also don't think you need to enter into a contract with the golf course to accept liability for damage to the homeowners property. I think that part is irrelevant.

I don't think you do either, but just in case there is a disagreement, the golf course is at least covering their own ass.

[Yasa]

I aim for houses. Too bad I always hook it and end up on the fairway.

[worth]

depends how fast you can run

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by worth

depends how fast you can run

I'd take the golf cart...