Hitting a house with a golf ball - Responsibility Debate

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by HOOT

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?

Except our streets weren't built, maintained and have patrons pay to play sports on them.

[Jake]

There are some really terrible comparisons in this thread... quit with the car references! Hitting someones car door, kicking up a rock into someones windshield, or having your car rear ended are completely different than accidentally hitting someones house with a golf ball. And thats only from going through 3 out of the 7 pages of this thread.

I think it depends on the exact situation, but IMO it should usually be covered by the golf course as part of the obscene price many courses charge. I don't think golfers should be held responsible, unless they are doing it on purpose obviously.

I definitely disagree that the homeowner should be responsible in any situation. The "well they are the ones who chose to buy a home on a golf course" argument is garbage.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by HOOT

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?

I've seen beginners with huge slices. I don't see that as being careless.

Just stop with the comparisons. They are pretty bad.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Except our streets weren't built, maintained and have patrons pay to play sports on them.

And what does that have to do with someone hitting a ball outside the grounds of which they do pay to play sports?

I guess it doesn't really matter, what goes around comes around. Next time something happens to your property I'm sure you will just shrug it off as an accident.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Jake

I've seen beginners with huge slices. I don't see that as being careless.

Just stop with the comparisons. They are pretty bad.

And those beginners should go to the range and practice or try a different club that is easier to hit. Hint: the higher the loft the easier it is to hit straight.

Also I won't stop it's the same thing. Someone being careless and not owning up to the damage they caused to someone elses property.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Jake

There are some really terrible comparisons in this thread... quit with the car references! Hitting someones car door, kicking up a rock into someones windshield, or having your car rear ended are completely different than accidentally hitting someones house with a golf ball.

Explain to me why they are so different? Do you think most motor vehicle collisions are due to malicious intent? They aren't. Just like hitting a golf ball out of bounds and damaging another persons private property, the vast, vast majority of car accidents are....well accidents. Nobody wants to rear end someone else, sometimes a person may hit a patch of ice and despite all good intentions, cause an accident and despite the circumstance, will be held liable.

What is it, in your opinion, that makes golfers exempt from any liability once they step onto a golf course? Because they pay a fee (that, in your opinion, is too high in some cases) to the course to use said course's private property? Because that doesn't make any logical sense, the fee has no connection to the assumption of liability for actions taken by patrons of the course, it's simply an admission fee.

Anywhere else that we go in life it's a given that if you're negligent in your actions and cause damage to private property, you're held liable. But if you're playing golf you're exempt?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by HOOT

And those beginners should go to the range and practice or try a different club that is easier to hit. Hint: the higher the loft the easier it is to hit straight.

Also I won't stop it's the same thing. Someone being careless and not owning up to the damage they caused to someone elses property.

It's not just total beginners who slice. If only people who can hit the ball straight on every single shot are allowed onto the course, there simply wouldn't be many people on the course. It would be much better for the course to pay for the occasional broken window and vastly expand their business by allowing more "beginners" onto the course.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Explain to me why they are so different? Do you think most motor vehicle collisions are due to malicious intent? They aren't. Just like hitting a golf ball out of bounds and damaging another persons private property, the vast, vast majority of car accidents are....well accidents. Nobody wants to rear end someone else, sometimes a person may hit a patch of ice and despite all good intentions, cause an accident and despite the circumstance, will be held liable.

What is it, in your opinion, that makes golfers exempt from any liability once they step onto a golf course? Because they pay a fee (that, in your opinion, is too high in some cases) to the course to use said course's private property? Because that doesn't make any logical sense, the fee has no connection to the assumption of liability for actions taken by patrons of the course, it's simply an admission fee.

Anywhere else that we go in life it's a given that if you're negligent in your actions and cause damage to private property, you're held liable. But if you're playing golf you're exempt?

It's just a bad comparison. The circumstances betwen the two are totally different. A better comparison would be if I set up a race course in the middle of a residential area and objects occasionally flew off the track onto the surrounding property.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's just a bad comparison. The circumstances betwen the two are totally different. A better comparison would be if I set up a race course in the middle of a residential area and objects occasionally flew off the track onto the surrounding property.

Well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I think it is a perfectly apt comparison.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's not just total beginners who slice. If only people who can hit the ball straight on every single shot are allowed onto the course, there simply wouldn't be many people on the course. It would be much better for the course to pay for the occasional broken window and vastly expand their business by allowing more "beginners" onto the course.

I'm not saying you have to hit it straight every single time but if you are slicing your driver 40-50 yards sideways 4 out of 5 times you should probably be looking at pulling out your 3 wood and hit it much straighter, but maybe not as far.

Are some courses poorly designed? Sure. Does that make them responsible for others terrible play and club selection? Nope.

It's no different than if you were at a friends house throwing around a ball and smashed the neighbours window. You wouldn't expect your friend to pay for it because the ball left from his property, just like you wouldn't expect the homeowner of the smashed window to pay for it because his house was too close to your friends. From this thread it sounds like most would be running inside to hide but I think most people would man up and just pay for the damage they caused.

[DropIt]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

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?

Hold on to your G.D door

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by DropIt

Hold on to your G.D door

Of course, but I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. Just like the guy who had the wind blow his door into the door of another, the golfer who hits his ball outside the bounds of the course, damaging the private property of another is liable for his actions. Despite the fact that neither party had any intent to cause damage, they both are still responsible.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by troutman

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

I think it would only be equitable to award you one point each.

And each of you is responsible for his own costs.

[A_3]

One factor being overlooked in this debate is golf technology. It has been previously mentioned that golf courses should address the potential of property damage at the design stage. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority do. HOWEVER, given the sizable increases in golf technology over the last twenty years, poor golfers are now able to hit the ball with more power, more consistently. In the past, when a ball was toed or heeled, it did not go very far as the sweet spot of the club was very small and thus very little power was transferred to the ball. Now, when a golfer toes or heels a shot, it can carry almost as much power as a "pured" shot. Unfortunately, this toe/heel shot will not be going straight with that power - it will be going abroad. Many of the areas now being hit would have been laughably out of the question twenty-five years ago. So while golf technology has been great for the game, making it more accessible and enjoyable to the average golfer, it has also had the unintended consequence of ushering in an era of long-distance errant golf balls.

I believe that this raises the question, where does the buck stop? Should the golf course be held responsible because it creates the opportunity for damage? Should the manufacturer of the technology be held responsible because they provided the tools for the damage? You can imagine the policy problems that would arise if either of these was established as precedent - the classic 'flood gates' argument. That is why the golfer will, typically, be held responsible for damage caused by their golf ball - more a legal reality than anything else.

However, it would be unjust for the courts to adhere to such a black and white notion of responsibility. There will be situations where the risk is so great or the design of the golf course so negligent, that the court will be required to intervene. Hence why home owners have been known to be successful against golf courses where the number of golf balls is beyond that what should be expected by a home owner on a golf course. The grand question for such cases is, as always, how many golf balls qualifies as "expected"? Ten a year? twenty? two hundred? The ambiguity is maintained because such cases are completely contextual and the court requires flexibility to deal with them.

I think, in consideration of the growth of golf technology, it is best to keep in mind the words of Uncle Ben:

"With great power comes great responsibility."

It is our choice to walk onto a golf course. We know how far we can hit it, we know how consistently we can hit it, and we know how much damage can occur when things go wrong. We have to weigh these factors and determine if we are comfortable with the risks involved. If not, there are a lot of sports that do not involve the breaking of $1000 windows.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Explain to me why they are so different? Do you think most motor vehicle collisions are due to malicious intent? They aren't. Just like hitting a golf ball out of bounds and damaging another persons private property, the vast, vast majority of car accidents are....well accidents. Nobody wants to rear end someone else, sometimes a person may hit a patch of ice and despite all good intentions, cause an accident and despite the circumstance, will be held liable.

What is it, in your opinion, that makes golfers exempt from any liability once they step onto a golf course? Because they pay a fee (that, in your opinion, is too high in some cases) to the course to use said course's private property? Because that doesn't make any logical sense, the fee has no connection to the assumption of liability for actions taken by patrons of the course, it's simply an admission fee.

Anywhere else that we go in life it's a given that if you're negligent in your actions and cause damage to private property, you're held liable. But if you're playing golf you're exempt?

It seems that your criteria for making a comparison is anything that is accidental. These are pointless comparisons, they serve no purpose. The last sentence of this post will explain the flaw in your analogy if you still want to stick to it.

In my opinion, it is the golf courses responsibility to distance fairways from houses, and to protect the houses with natural barriers such as trees and hills. In many cases, the golf course also built and decided the location of the homes. In that case, I think the course should take responsibility for building homes close to the fairway.

Home owners are also perfectly capable of protecting their own homes with nets, creative landscaping and stronger windows.

Do you see the difference between this situation and driving? In one case, there is very little you can do to protect your car against bad drivers. In the other, there are plenty of options on all sides to protect your home from bad golfers (or golfers having a very bad game... even Tiger Woods hits it well off the fairway sometimes).

[speede5]

So, if I step into a rink and get hit by an errant puck, it is my responsibility because I knew the risks associated with the game, but if I park my house beside a golf course it is the players responsibility, even if the course and house are part of the same project.

An amatuer golfer is responsible for his ball at all times, yet a pro hockey player is not culpible in the slightest for what happens with the puck.

Sounds like the one with the most money wins in both cases.

BTW, someone mentioned the nets in hockey arenas, this was in response to a little girl being killed by an erant slap shot. The player was not deemed responsible, yet the league mandated the nets almost immediately.

For the record I think the golfer and the course share responsibility, and the home owner should take whatever precautions they can to prevent damage, I mean you just know someone is going to hit your house.

[ken0042]

How about this for a better analogy? If a person chooses to buy/build a riverfront house; they should be aware that flooding is a risk associated with owning such a house.

Both riverfront and golf course backing houses are generally considered to be desirable; the only difference here is a flood isn't cause by a person but by God/ Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How about this for a better analogy? If a person chooses to buy/build a riverfront house; they should be aware that flooding is a risk associated with owning such a house.

Both riverfront and golf course backing houses are generally considered to be desirable; the only difference here is a flood isn't cause by a person but by God/ Flying Spaghetti Monster.

That's kind of a big difference. I have a right to own property without my neighbour messing it up. I have rights against a river.

[DuffMan]

One time in Scottsdale, I put my ball way over a fence and onto a busy road, full of expensive cars. It kind of happened in slow motion as I was wondering what kind of car I was about to hit, and how expensive it was going to be. Somehow it missed all the cars but bounced way up in the air and landed in some condos. No idea what happened to it after that, but I was glad, I didn't cause a traffic accident with expensive cars.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Thanks for the spelling lesson, [Mode dit- over the line]

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.

First off, I never said I was a terrible golfer. I have never hit a house, window, person, golf cart etc., but it does happen, even to professional golfers making millions of dollars a year. I have a mid level handicap and my lowest round is a 79. I doubt I'll ever break par, but I hope to one day.

It's funny that you get upset over someone giving you a lesson, even though you are trying to give them out yourself. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it.

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of courses in Alberta. I'm saying there are only certain pieces of land that can be used for golf, whereas you can build a house in many more places. The amount of land required for a course is much bigger than that needed for a house. You can build a house near downtown, but you obviously can't put a golf course there. I agree there are many courses to play, but I am just saying there are many more places to live.

I asked if you had asked about netting. I didn't say it was the only option. Trees would be much nicer, so it's good you and/or them have looked into it. Do you really think yelling from a balcony for your neighbours' entertainment would embarass a golfer? That's just a silly thing to say. Golfers don't want to hit your house just as much as you don't want your house to get hit. You can only golf on golf courses, but you don't have to live on a golf course. You can live downtown, in the suburbs or elsewhere. Living on a golf course is only one option of many, whereas to golf there is only one type of option.

Your views towards golfers and golf courses make you seem like a spoiled brat. You want the view of the golf course, but not the risks that come with them. I have tenants at my rental properties. There is a risk they will damage my house. There is a risk I will get in a car accident. There is a risk hail will damage my property. For these reasons I have insurance. I accept the risk that things could go wrong and I am comfortable with them. I accept all liabilities that could happen to me, and if I wasn't comfortable with the liabilities and/or risks, I would not enter the situation. I don't want my house hit with golf balls, so I choose not to live near a course. It's that simple.

I find it laughable that you would have a house on a golf course and would get so worked up over golf balls coming near or on your property. Did you really, honestly expect that you wouldn't encounter this problem? This is similar to you complaining about building your house in tornado alley and then having a tornado hitting your house. You could have built the house somewhere else, but chose to build it where known tornados hit. That's your own fault. I really like Ken's analogy about buying a house that could flood. You have to assume it could happen and if you choose to live there, you need to accept the risks. You can't have it both ways. I don't want my house to get flooded, so I don't live on waterfront. It's another simple choice.

I could look into which courses were built first, but I doubt it would change your mind. I am more saying that someone didn't see a bunch of houses and then plan to put a golf course beside it. It may have happened, but I would guess the course was planned first or they were planned at the same time as you mentioned. I can see this conversation happening though:

Yanda: I'm so upset. My house got hit by a golf ball.
Friend: That sucks. How did it happen? Did gets drive by your house and throw balls at you?
Yanda: No. I bought a house right on a golf course, and one of the golfers hit a bad shot and accidently hit it onto my house.
Friend: So you are trying to tell me that your house, which is right beside a golf course, got hit by a golf ball?
Yanda: Yeah. What are the odds?
Friend: No idea. I would never have seen that happening in a million years.
Yanda: I know. I never thought golf balls would come onto my property when I live right beside a golf course.

I never said I wouldn't accept responsibility. I did say I wouldn't feel bad if your window gets broken. I was in a car accident 14 years ago that was my fault. I fully admitted to the police officer, person I hit and the insurance companies that it was my fault. I always accept responsibility for my actions. You also need to accept the risk that your house will get hit with golf balls. How you can assume that it won't happen is beyond me. If you were really that concerned over it, you can easily move to somewhere that has green space to look at that doesn't have balls coming at you. What course do you live by? This way I can be extra careful there.