Hitting a house with a golf ball - Responsibility Debate

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't know. Which one of us gets the two points?

One each?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

*it's
*it's
*their
*fore
*you're
*you
*won't
*
*golf
*lessons

There are others, but I chose the first ten I saw. If you are so bad at typing, maybe you should take typing and/or English lessons. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones or golf balls.

In all seriousness, if a house is 250 yards away, I would think it would have to be an accident that it was hit there. Have you talked with the golf course in a calm and reasonable manner about putting up netting? I don't know where you live or what course you're at, but I'm guessing if you and other neighbours petitioned the course for netting and showed how the course's business was harming your living, they might listen and help you out. If you are just going to yell from your deck when you do get hit, you likely won't have much success.

Golfers don't want to hit your house. They want to hit the fairway. Even the best professionals don't hit the ball perfectly every time. If you are that concerned with golf balls hitting your house, there is a really easy solution to it. There are only a limited amount of places where people can golf, and I'm going to guess the vast majority of courses were there before the houses were. The houses are built beside the course and then the homeowners complain that the golfers are ruining their living? There are many places you could have built your house or moved to.

People who get into rear end accidents and hit other cars from behind don't mean to do that either, they want to stop their car without hitting another. But, despite the intention, the rear ender, like the golfer, carries liability for his/her actions. One could potentially argue the golfer shouldn't carry the full burden (100% liability) of the loss, but to suggest he carries no liability is absurd.

[T@T]

This happened. who's responsible?

2nd hole at the Elks, a buddy hit his second shot, ball hits a sprinkler head just beside green,bounces over a small fence,hits the road and bounds threw a house window...a 230 yard 9 iron!

Spoiler!

the course refused to pay basically calling us all liars saying it hit the sprinkler head,after a tonne of phone calls my buddy ended up replacing the window

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Yanda

What kind of person wants to be looking at a netting. Thats like getting crappy seats to a flames game.

Or any seats that aren't in the lower bowl that look at the netting.....

[fredr123]

There are lots of court cases where the golf course was found to be liable for private nuisance in allowing errant golf balls to enter adjacent properties. The courts seem to take this track when the number of balls or the nature of the damage is unusually large. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Lakeview Gardens reviewed some of those cases and described them as follows:

There are many cases where golf courses which permitted balls to escape have been found to be private nuisances. However, a close examination of them discloses in each case much more serious property damage or threat of property damage or injury than here. In Carley v. Willow Park Golf Course Ltd., 2002 ABQB 813 (CanLII), [2003] 2 W.W.R. 659 (Alta. Q.B.), the plaintiffs, whose house was adjacent to a driving range, found themselves unable to use their yard, counted 30 balls in their yard in one 10 day period, and 174 balls, 88 balls and 176 balls in one year periods. In Douglas Lake Cattle Co. v. Mount Paul Golf Course (SPM) Inc., 2001 BCSC 566 (CanLII), 2001 BCSC 566, [2001] B.C.J. No. 894 (QL), the plaintiff collected 2,577 balls in a period of one year and five days, and balls frequently damaged equipment and narrowly missed employees and customers. In Segal v. Derrick Golf & Winter Club (1977), 76 D.L.R. (3d) 746 (Alta. S.C. (T.D.)), over 200 balls in one year made the plaintiff’s yard unusable for family and children. In Transcona Country Club v. Transcona Golf Club, 2002 MBQB 113 (CanLII), 2002 MBQB 113, [2002] M.J. No. 163 (QL), a building was hit by golf balls on almost a daily basis until a fence was built. Although the trial judge found a private nuisance and awarded damages, no injunction was asked for or granted. The respondent in this case was not affected as severely as were the plaintiffs in any of these cases.

So whether the property owner can hold the golf course depends on a few factors. A property owner will have difficulty having the golf course held liable for a single incident.

Considering whether the property owner could hold the golfer responsible in court is probably even less clear. I haven't looked very hard, but there weren't any reported decisions that popped up. I would suggest if the golfer's actions went well beyond what you would usually expect in a typical golf game (like the Nova Scotia Happy Gilmore golfer guy) you could could argue that the damages that result go beyond the risk that may have been assumed by the homeowner. If you live 150 yards out on the right side of a par 4, finding a few balls in your yard probably isn't out of the ordinary. If you live behind a tee box and find a golfer hitting balls through your window, you might have a case that the golfer should be legally responsible for the damage he caused. That's not at all part of the game and would probably not be a reasonable risk assumed by a homeowner adjacent to a golf course.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Thanks for the spelling lesson, I wasn't sure you were a douchbag but you pretty much proved that.

What kind of person wants to be looking at a netting. Thats like getting crappy seats to a flames game. Asking for trees on the other hand is a different story and over the last 5 years the trees have grown a bit and the number of balls is reduced. Obviously im going to yell because the guy in question is a ##### and wont even come see if there is damages... that he caused. Even if there is no damage I have every right to embarass the guy infront of whoever he is golfing with and give my neighbours something to laugh at. Besides if hes not coming to see if there is damages then hes already decided not to pay damages.

"There are only a limited amount of places where people can golf"... You cant be serious... there is over 400 courses in Alberta... im sure you can go hack the ball around at any of them.

I doubt you could even name 3 courses that were built and then houses were built afterward. Im sure 95% of courses with houses along them were pre-planned communities.

You obviously take no responsibility for your actions and I for one hope I don't see you on the course, or driving on the road.

I understand you've had a traumatic experience growing up beside a golf course, but this is why people have insurance.

Accidents happen, much like a foul ball hitting a car windshield or a puck hitting a fan, accidents happen. The golf course is insured, the homeowner is insured, the golfer probably doesnt have 'accidental dog killing' insurance, but I'm sure thats mostly due to availability.

Realistically speaking, I'm surprised that incidents like these arent generally solved through a collaboration of the course's insurance and the homeowner's insurance. I would imagine that this would typically be included as part of the cost of the round.

It just makes far more sense to me for the homeowner to go to the course than to try and chase down a random dude on a golf course. And if he doesnt want to pay whats the homeowner going to do? Call the cops?

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

I didn't read through the entire thread but the homeowner is responsible for damages to their own house, its called implied risk and you assume it when purchasing a house on a golf course.

Well after speaking with someone more in the know I retract my above statement and suprisingly just as fred123 was saying the ownace is on the golf course unless they offered netting to the home owner and it was refused then the homeowner will be held responsible. Unless of course it can be proven that you were playing with negligence ie: aiming purposely at a house, trying to cut a dog leg around a house etc. basically a horrible golfer with a bad slice or hook is not negligent.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by T@T

This happened. who's responsible?

2nd hole at the Elks, a buddy hit his second shot, ball hits a sprinkler head just beside green,bounces over a small fence,hits the road and bounds threw a house window...a 230 yard 9 iron!

Spoiler!

the course refused to pay basically calling us all liars saying it hit the sprinkler head,after a tonne of phone calls my buddy ended up replacing the window

It's still your friends ball that caused the damage, sprinkler or not. It's like saying that because it hits a cart path and causes damage you have no responsibility because you didn't build the path.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by HOOT

It's still your friends ball that caused the damage, sprinkler or not. It's like saying that because it hits a cart path and causes damage you have no responsibility because you didn't build the path.

But did the golf course take all the preventative measures to insure balls would not leave the course property? There would have to be some liability of the course on something like this.

[Yanda]

Originally Posted by Locke

It just makes far more sense to me for the homeowner to go to the course than to try and chase down a random dude on a golf course. And if he doesnt want to pay whats the homeowner going to do? Call the cops?

Call the course and get the Golf Warden to find out there information? Then get your insurance company to deal with it?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

But did the golf course take all the preventative measures to insure balls would not leave the course property? There would have to be some liability of the course on something like this.

The golf course would have to act reasonably. I don't think they would have to take "all preventative measures". The only surefire preventative measure would be to not allow golfers on the course at all.

In other words, the golf course doesn't have to abstain, it just has to wear a rubber.

[Yanda]

Instead of putting up nets the courses just need to plant trees in the trouble areas. At least that way the majority of the balls in your yard bounced in instead of off the house. A bad shot should be in the sand trap, not in the yard.

[dissentowner]

If I hit a house I make like Neg and leg it.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

But did the golf course take all the preventative measures to insure balls would not leave the course property? There would have to be some liability of the course on something like this.

Assuming this was an average par 4 that would be 14,000 sq. yards for that hole with about 10-4" sprinkler heads. What else could the golf course do besides not installing a sprinkler system?

What if the ball were to bounce off a tree into someone's window? Do you claim that against mother nature? the golf course? or the person hitting the errant ball? IMHO the person playing the ball is responsible for their actions.

Are you saying the only way a golf course can save itself from being liable is to plexi-glass or net the whole course?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Assuming this was an average par 4 that would be 14,000 sq. yards for that hole with about 10-4" sprinkler heads. What else could the golf course do besides not installing a sprinkler system?

What if the ball were to bounce off a tree into someone's window? Do you claim that against mother nature? the golf course? or the person hitting the errant ball? IMHO the person playing the ball is responsible for their actions.

Are you saying the only way a golf course can save itself from being liable is to plexi-glass or net the whole course?

No but maybe put up a higher fence behind greens. I don't see why my comment is so outlandish?

Do golf courses really think that a 5 foot chain link fence is going to do anything?

An example is Harvest Hills...On the 8th hole along Country Hills they have that really tall fence, yet on the 7th hole they have a regular 5 or 6 foot fence when someone can easilly hook one onto that road. I'm not saying put up 100 foot high plexi-glass around the whole course, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell where a problem spot is going to be and take measures to prevent a ball from leaving the course.

Golf courses time and time again don't put up as many safety precautions (higher fences, nets, trees) as they can and I think they should shoulder a lot of the liability for balls leaving the course.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If I hit a house I make like Neg and leg it.

I dont know what this means, but I would run.

Or maybe throw the golf club at them.

Or both.

[Yanda]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Golf courses time and time again don't put up as many safety precautions (higher fences, nets, trees) as they can and I think they should shoulder a lot of the liability for balls leaving the course.

Absolutely. The Engineers designing the course should be thinking ahead by pre-planning trouble spots simply by design.

There should be ample green space around hazards and the greens to avoid these situations.

Adding trees and shrubs can also help along roadways. You dont wanna see traffic while your playing anyways.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

No but maybe put up a higher fence behind greens. I don't see why my comment is so outlandish?

Do golf courses really think that a 5 foot chain link fence is going to do anything?

An example is Harvest Hills...On the 8th hole along Country Hills they have that really tall fence, yet on the 7th hole they have a regular 5 or 6 foot fence when someone can easilly hook one onto that road. I'm not saying put up 100 foot high plexi-glass around the whole course, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell where a problem spot is going to be and take measures to prevent a ball from leaving the course.

Golf courses time and time again don't put up as many safety precautions (higher fences, nets, trees) as they can and I think they should shoulder a lot of the liability for balls leaving the course.

Isn't #7 a little par 3 where people would have to hook it so bad that it would have to cross a road to hit a house? (hopefully I'm thinking of the same course).

And to be honest the fence isn't the problem it's the water (again if I'm thinking of the same course, let alone hole) on the right because 99% of people who play that hole will force their ball left as it is.

Hoenstly if you can't play a 150-180 yard par 3 without hooking it so much that is crosses a road and still damages a house then you should not be playing golf on a course. Hit the range until you can hit an 8 iron straight-ish.

Golf courses shouldn't have to design their courses for the worst possible players on the planet. If you can't control a certain club, club down, simple. If you know you are going to duck hook your driver (you know who you are) then take out a 3 or 5 wood on that hole. If you can't hit your driver straight you probably aren't or shouldn't be playing for score anyways so just lay up.

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

I would argue that hockey rinks, ski hills are potentially liable for injuries/damages on their property in certain cases. If it has happened several times at that specific area, then sooner or later, wouldn't it become negligent to not have some sort of safety measures up?

I'm guessing this is why so many rinks have netting above the glass protecting the stands, and so many ski hills will have certain trees marked with high visibility tape/netting.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Isn't #7 a little par 3 where people would have to hook it so bad that it would have to cross a road to hit a house? (hopefully I'm thinking of the same course).

And to be honest the fence isn't the problem it's the water (again if I'm thinking of the same course, let alone hole) on the right because 99% of people who play that hole will force their ball left as it is.

Hoenstly if you can't play a 150-180 yard par 3 without hooking it so much that is crosses a road and still damages a house then you should not be playing golf on a course. Hit the range until you can hit an 8 iron straight-ish.

Golf courses shouldn't have to design their courses for the worst possible players on the planet. If you can't control a certain club, club down, simple. If you know you are going to duck hook your driver (you know who you are) then take out a 3 or 5 wood on that hole. If you can't hit your driver straight you probably aren't or shouldn't be playing for score anyways so just lay up.

You are thinking of the right course and the right hole. In this case I wasn't really saying people could hit a house, I meant they could hook it and hit a car. Mostly I was just using this to prove my point that in my eyes courses don't do all they can to prevent property damage from golf balls.

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.

I still think golf courses should take more precautions to prevent property if they want to be 100% liability free. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be held accountable as well...There is some sort of percentage of blame to each party (golfer, golf course, home owner).