Pretty much every golf course I've been to states the golfer is responsible fore any damage, in the small print somewhere.
I've hit many houses. No windows or anything, and no one has come out and talked to me. I would tell them to take it up with my insurance company, if it came down to that.
My parents live on a golf course on Van. Island, and they and all of their neighbors have some dents etc in the siding. One guy tries to charge people $25 for hitting his roof, because that;s how much he thinks a ceramic shingle costs.
It's easy to say that people should know their talent level better and not try to make shots they probably won't make but as I was told in the drunk driving debate in the Ramage thread...People are simply not going to make the right choice.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
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.
The government puts up barricades, interchanges, street lights, traffic signals. They do studies every year about where the most dangerous intersections are and make changes if they can. Sounds to me like they are trying to minimize the risk, something golf courses really don't do very often.
Clearly you don't agree with my position, which is fine. There is no need to get all uppity about it...You might not agree with it but people can have different opinions than you.
While you say people need to take responsibility for their actions I was didn't disagree, I simply was saying the golfer wasn't the only person responsible. The course needs to take precautions since they allow golfers of any skill level to play there. People who choose to buy a house there know there is the potential for a ball hitting their house can make adjustments to their property (netting or something) if they wish, but if they don't then they have to know there is the chance their house will get nailed. The golfer obviously has some liability since they hit the ball, doesn't matter if they are bad or just duffed the shot.
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
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following User Says Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
The government puts up barricades, interchanges, street lights, traffic signals. They do studies every year about where the most dangerous intersections are and make changes if they can. Sounds to me like they are trying to minimize the risk, something golf courses really don't do very often.
And no matter how large the golf course makes their fences or their nets someone will always find a way to hit it over and/or around it. Golf courses shouldn't have to babysit people when they use the course. The golf course shouldn't be responsible for you or anyone else who plays outside the limits of their game, simple.
I understand where you are coming from but I just don't understand why a golf course should be responsible especially when 99% of them say golfers are responsible for damages. You know the risks stepping on to the course that if you cause damage it is your fault, not the the people that built the course or house.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
And no matter how large the golf course makes their fences or their nets someone will always find a way to hit it over and/or around it. Golf courses shouldn't have to babysit people when they use the course. The golf course shouldn't be responsible for you or anyone else who plays outside the limits of their game, simple.
I understand where you are coming from but I just don't understand why a golf course should be responsible especially when 99% of them say golfers are responsible for damages. You know the risks stepping on to the course that if you cause damage it is your fault, not the the people that built the course or house.
Let's say I'm the best golfer in the world and I take all the precautions in the world to not hit a house...Triple check my aim, my hands, my footing...I swing and it's one of the few times I duff it and I hit a house that could have been prevented by either the course or the owner putting up a barrier or sorts. How is it only my fault if I have taken every precaution in the world (excluding not playing) when the course and/or home owner have not taken every precaution.
It's like a woman blaming a guy for knocking her up because he didn't wear a rubber, but she isn't on the pill and didn't tell the guy to wear a rubber. Your point about people need to be held accountable for their actions should also apply to home owners and golf courses.
It's like a woman blaming a guy for knocking her up because he didn't wear a rubber, but she isn't on the pill and didn't tell the guy to wear a rubber. Your point about people need to be held accountable for their actions should also apply to home owners and golf courses.
Except that girl (golf course) is saying if you knock me up (cause damage) you are responsible for it (paying the home owner). This is why they put up the signs. It doesn't matter how good you are if YOU hit a ball and cause damage it's your fault, just like it would be your responsibility to take care of that child rubber or not.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Except that girl (golf course) is saying if you knock me up (cause damage) you are responsible for it (paying the home owner). This is why they put up the signs. It doesn't matter how good you are if YOU hit a ball and cause damage it's your fault, just like it would be your responsibility to take care of that child rubber or not.
I see what you are saying but I disagree. I'm not a lawyer but I don't believe that just putting up a sign exempts you from all liability.
Now if you excuse me I have to go and golf....Hopefully after all this talk I don't hit a house *knock on wood*
Last edited by Hockeyguy15; 05-12-2011 at 03:26 PM.
I see what you are saying but I disagree. I'm not a lawyer but I don't believe that just putting up a sign exempts you from all liability.
Now if you excuse me I have to go and golf....Hopefully after all this talk I don't hit a house *knock on wood*
IMO the signs are fairly irrelevant. The way I see things, it's pretty simple: Golfer makes choice to play a golf course with a specific layout that has private property (homes) outside the property of the course (where the game is designed to be played). The golfer then is able to clearly assess, while on and playing the course, where any private property is in relation to where he needs to shoot his ball. Golfer then hits the ball so badly off line it leaves the private property of the course, entering and damaging the private party of a third party.
Why, as a golf course owner, or as a home owner, should one be liable to "take necessary precautions" against that type of negligence? And what could even be done? 100 foot netting lining each and every property line on the course? Why, as a home owner, should one be forced to diminish the value and quality of their property (having to look out at a giant net/screen) simply to protect themselves from the potential negligence of golf course patrons?
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kipperfan For This Useful Post:
Put me squarely in the camp of "tough luck homeowner. I'm not paying for anything. I also won't come seek you out, but if I see you I'll be profusely sorry...then keep playing on. You live on a freakin golf course."
Put me squarely in the camp of "tough luck homeowner. I'm not paying for anything. I also won't come seek you out, but if I see you I'll be profusely sorry...then keep playing on. You live on a freakin golf course."
If someone opened their car door on your car and caused a large dent would you want them to fix it or is it your fault for parking in a parking lot with other cars?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
If someone opened their car door on your car and caused a large dent would you want them to fix it or is it your fault for parking in a parking lot with other cars?
I'd want them to fix it. Smashing your door into another car door is a careless and completely preventable act.
I like the ones that give you a better idea about what kind of person everyone is. I, it seems, am an ####### on this topic and I'm totally ok with it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
I'd want them to fix it. Smashing your door into another car door is a careless and completely preventable act.
What if the person only opened their door an inch, but a gall force wind kicked up at just that second, blowing the door out of the that persons hands and subsequently into your door, causing a dent? What would you say then?
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
I like the ones that give you a better idea about what kind of person everyone is. I, it seems, am an ####### on this topic and I'm totally ok with it.
Thought it'd be interesting to see the thoughts out there but truly it is because I like it when people on the internet fight!
I'd want them to fix it. Smashing your door into another car door is a careless and completely preventable act.
Just as careless and preventable as slicing a ball into someones house. It's not like you have to hit around the houses to make it to the green they are usually pretty far off a course that you need to suck pretty bad to hit them which means you shouldn't be on the course, making it preventable if you never teed off to start.
What if a kid was playing baseball or hockey on the street and a ball/puck went through your window?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
