House on Golf Course

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by prarieboy

Golfers are responsible for damage if they hit your house.

This is not accurate. Home owners assume risks associated with the environment their home exists. The ultimate question to ask is, "What was there first - the house or the golf course?" If the answer is the golf course, then the home owner bought the property knowing of the dangers of ownership. They knew what they were getting into, and if they claim they did not, it is still ultimately their issue to deal with. Take it to court and make sure this question is asked.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1

The plaintiffs will have judgment against the defendant Willow Park Golf Course Ltd. for the sum of $2500.00 general damages. In addition, the plaintiffs are granted a permanent injunction against the Willow Park Golf Course Ltd. enjoining it from allowing users of its driving range from hitting golf balls over or through the 90 foot net barrier and onto the plaintiffs’ property municipally described as 52 Willow Park Green S.E., Calgary, Alberta.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1

I was just about to say there must be some case law on this.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There's plenty... these are just within Alberta.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1

I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for nuisance and are also entitled to an order restraining this continuing intrusion. Because the nuisance arises out of unlawful and continuing trespass on their property, I find that this is not a situation where damages should be awarded in lieu of an injunction.

In arriving at this conclusion I have taken into account the attempts made by the defendant to rectify the situation as well as the fact that a very substantial expenditure will be required to be made by the defendant to change the layout of its course or to otherwise protect the plaintiffs’ property. Counsel have referred me to the Australian case of Lester-Travers v. Frankston, [1970] V.R. 2, a case in which the facts are very similar to the ones before me and in which the court faced the same problems. In his judgment, Anderson J. states at pp. 9-10:

“I know of no basis on which it can be said that the interests of golfers, whether they be playing on a municipal golf course or any other kind of golf course, are superior to the right of the occupier of premises to the undisturbed use and enjoyment of such premises. In Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850, [1951] 1 All E.R. 1078, where the question was whether a cricket ball unexpectedly hit into a public thoroughfare constituted a public nuisance, Lord Reid said, at (A.C.) p. 867 (All E.R., p. 1086): ‘If cricket cannot be played on a ground without creating a substantial risk, then it should not be played there at all.’ Probably only a Law Lord would dare to say such a thing in England, but emboldened by his Lordship’s observations, I venture to say that precisely the same observations apply to golf. There exists, in my opinion, a substantial risk in this case, and it would be contrary to one’s sense of justice, as well as inconsistent with the law, that the plaintiff’s rights should be subordinated to the leisurely pursuits of sportsmen. Nor does it assist the defendant’s case that the defendant was restricted in the amount of land available for the seventh and eighth holes. If the area is too restricted, the defendant’s predicament is of its own making and it is not resolved by penalizing the plaintiff. The words of Lord Reid are equally applicable to this aspect also.”

Basically it depends on whether the amount of nuisance is enough for the courts to get involved. If you find a half a dozen balls in your yard every year, and your window gets broken one time, that's probably not enough to bug the Courts about. If it's half a dozen a week, however, different story.

As a more general comment, maybe fewer armchair lawyers would be nice. It's a bit frustrating to read people who want to make themselves sound like experts talk about things they have no basic understanding of... not to name names.

[Tron_fdc]

OK, so dumb it down for me.

If I smash a house with my drive, can I tell the home owner to beat it when they come outside?

What are the parameters that allow for me to laugh and walk away?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As a more general comment, maybe fewer armchair lawyers would be nice. It's a bit frustrating to read people who want to make themselves sound like experts talk about things they have no basic understanding of... not to name names.

I intend to continue my practice of making armchair psychiatric and psychological diagnoses of forumers based on their CalgaryPuck posts, Mr. Dissociative Identity Disorder.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I intend to continue my practice of making armchair psychiatric and psychological diagnoses of forumers based on their CalgaryPuck posts, Mr. Dissociative Identity Disorder.

We reserve the right to be annoyed about you doing this, should you ever get one of these wrong.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

We reserve the right to be annoyed about you doing this, should you ever get one of these wrong.

Hasn't happened yet. I read a lot of Wikipedia articles.

Am I speaking to Kevin or Barry right now?

[CaptainYooh]

I played a round at Heritage Point, when a guy in my foursome put a ball into a large window of a house backing on #9 (the "Island" Hole). The homeowner (older lady) was waiting for us on the balcony with a ball in her hand. She looked furious. The guy came over, said he was sorry, told her his name and phone number, left his business card on the grass of her backyard, then asked her to have the window replaced and send the bill to him. She nodded and turned around to go back into the house. The guy shouted: "Excuse me, can I have my ball back, please?".

Golf courses are responsible for all damages to the property. One of the more infamous cases in Calgary - Willow Park Golf Course got sued by a homeowner, defended itself vigorously on account of the "owner should have known when bought a house", lost, appealed and lost again. As a result, the course had to re-arrange and re-build its entire driving range and a couple of holes to accommodate a safer design spending millions of dollars. Golf Courses try to hold members accountable to the damages they cause; but it's a self-policing honour system supported by other members' watching each other and supposedly reporting on those who don't.

[DuffMan]

wouldn't putting a golf ball through somebody's window be the same as throwing a rock through somebody's window. I mean, besides intentions it is still the same property damage.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

wouldn't putting a golf ball through somebody's window be the same as throwing a rock through somebody's window. I mean, besides intentions it is still the same property damage.

I'd say these two incidents are VERY different. One is a pure accident. The other is an act of vandalism, a crime.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1

The suit was in relation to the driving range and not the course itself. It was also not in relation to damage caused by a golfer, but instead a nuisance factor. The judgement differentiates between the two and the potential for the nuisance complaint.

https://www.golf.com/special-features/cover-your-asset

"While the law varies from state to state — and from case to case — it’s rarely the offending golfer who is responsible for the damage. If you live on a golf course, you assume risk."

Even bodily injury is questionable.

https://www.cmaa.org/PcsTemplate.aspx?id=37197

The best course of action is to take it up with the facility where your property is located. Some courses will pay for or share in the cost of putting up protective nets on high risk locations. This is usually to prevent long term shenanigans between the land owner, facility, and golfers.

[Fuzz]

Maybe it's time we just got rid of golf courses.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Depends on the course too, I would assume those living along Douglasdale get hit a lot more than those along, say, Maple Ridge.

I remember playing Douglasdale back in the day and seeing kids playing in their backyards wearing helmets.

Douglasdale would be a horrible course to live on.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There's plenty... these are just within Alberta.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1


Basically it depends on whether the amount of nuisance is enough for the courts to get involved. If you find a half a dozen balls in your yard every year, and your window gets broken one time, that's probably not enough to bug the Courts about. If it's half a dozen a week, however, different story.

As a more general comment, maybe fewer armchair lawyers would be nice. It's a bit frustrating to read people who want to make themselves sound like experts talk about things they have no basic understanding of... not to name names.

Guess we better stop making trade proposals, dissecting the Flames performances, or discussing hockey at all since none of use are professional GMs, players, coaches or scouts.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Guess we better stop making trade proposals, dissecting the Flames performances, or discussing hockey at all since none of use are professional GMs, players, coaches or scouts.

There is no professional designation for being a hockey fan. You don't go to school for it. When we talk about anti-vaxxers, we listen to what people with medical degrees have to say, we don't volunteer our own opinions about the effects of various vaccines. If we did, we might make stupid mistakes, like suggesting that American law would somehow apply to people living Alberta.

Totally fine to say that you think that according to common sense, someone who buys a house by a golf course should expect to have it get hit by a bunch of golf balls and has no right to complain, but don't go misleading people into thinking that that's actually what the law says.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Totally fine to say that you think that according to common sense, someone who buys a house by a golf course should expect to have it get hit by a bunch of golf balls and has no right to complain, but don't go misleading people into thinking that that's actually what the law says.

You mean like talking about property damage, then introducing a judgement based on a nuisance lawsuit?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

OK, so dumb it down for me.

If I smash a house with my drive, can I tell the home owner to beat it when they come outside?

I missed this.

Basically, yes, unless you hit their house intentionally or you were negligent. If you are playing golf like a normal human and by accident your drive hits their house, you are probably not going to be liable for the damage.

In Canada, there is a tort of nuisance, a tort of negligence, and I guess if you were to go onto the homeowner's property to get your ball back, a tort of trespass. There is no cause of action called "property damage", despite what certain dunning-kruger afflicted individuals might want to tell you.

What are the parameters that allow for me to laugh and walk away?

I guess the central determining question would be "are you kind of a dick"?

[wookster]

My bro-in-law lives along what used to be one of the fairways of Shawnee Slopes golf course and his house was in a bad spot. He was about 250yds up the fairway along a par 4 and got on average about 15-20 golf balls a week into his backyard, even with a super high mesh fence and a row of trees between him and the fairway. He had to install a mesh deflector on the one end of his deck so they didn't have to worry about getting hit if they were sitting out there. His next door neighbors house had it worse as it was directly in the driving range of most people has dozens of holes in the stucco side of it from golf balls hitting the house.

If I was buying a house on a golf course I would definitely pay attention to where on the course it is and try not to be right in the landing zone distance for an average driver.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In Canada, there is a tort of nuisance, a tort of negligence, and I guess if you were to go onto the homeowner's property to get your ball back, a tort of trespass. There is no cause of action called "property damage", despite what certain dunning-kruger afflicted individuals might want to tell you.

This guy should be looking for legal help from CHL, seeing as property damage isn't a thing.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...esults-charges

The RCMP seem to investigate "property damage" a lot for something that isn't against the law.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...roperty-damage
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...ley-substation
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...eft-ball-field
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...music-festival
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...murray-harbour
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...roperty-damage

Not just the RCMP either. CPS appears to be in the mix.

https://newsroom.calgary.ca/police-s...amage-suspect/

Contrary to what the King of Torts has to say, property damage is a thing. That's why there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing and why law enforcement investigates it with such regularity.

I'm glad you acknowledge the issue of liability, and the concept of intent. Without intent it is difficult to establish that a law was broken. A golfer - unless a real dick - does not have intent on hitting a house and can clearly make the argument that there was no intent. Unless the house is directly in line, the golfer has no intent of hitting the structure or in its direction, meaning this this is an act of god or good old LOFT.