Hitting a house with a golf ball - Responsibility Debate

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

While you have the right not to have your neighbour mess up your property, you have to be reasonable as well. It's unreasonable to expect to never have a golf ball hit onto your property when you live next to a golf course.

I'm not property law expert, *cough*troutman*cough*cough* but would a golf course have an easement on surrounding property in the case of errant balls?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's kind of a big difference. I have a right to own property without my neighbour messing it up. I have [no] rights against a river.

I assume you meant "no" there. (No worries- I'm the last person who could complain about somebody's typos.)

My point wasn't so much about what the rights are; but the risks involved in such property ownership. There are rewards to having a house backing onto both; and both also involve a certain amount of risk.

I've seen houses built by rivers that have barriers that can be used to protect against flooding. There are plenty of screen options for homeowners who live on golf courses. Trees, hedges, etc could be used to protect the house. If the home owner's lack of the use of such protection is because they want an unobstructed view of the course; that is their choice. To me the risks are known and mostly preventable.

[Vansmack]

Anyone who thinks that it should be the homeowners responsibility is insane. If you damage property belonging to somebody else, you should be on the hook to fix it. Somebody shouldn't have to suffer financially for the inability of others to play golf.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by ken0042

My point wasn't so much about what the rights are; but the risks involved in such property ownership. There are rewards to having a house backing onto both; and both also involve a certain amount of risk.

But there are risks in everything. There is a risk in driving everyday but if someone hits you, you claim against them you don't just shrug it off and say "well those are the risks of driving on the road". Just like homeowners shoudln't have to shrug it off when they get an errant ball flying through their window because they live on a golf course and know the risks.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Anyone that makes a blanket statement about a contextual situation with hundreds if not thousands of various scenarios or variables is insane. Somebody shouldn't have to compensate in full if reasonable steps to mitigate damages were not taken.

Every single house, course, and hole is different. If you knowingly build where there is a high risk of balls coming into your yard or hitting your house, and you take no steps what so ever to mitigate damages/risk, you should not be compensated in full.

The level of responsibility depends on the situation. Period. It's not, nor is it ever going to be always the golfer, always the course, or always the homeowner.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by HOOT

But there are risks in everything. There is a risk in driving everyday but if someone hits you, you claim against them you don't just shrug it off and say "well those are the risks of driving on the road". Just like homeowners shoudln't have to shrug it off when they get an errant ball flying through their window because they live on a golf course and know the risks.

But you have a responsibility to mitigate your damages. That's why if you're hit from behind when you're stopped at a red light, and you go into the car infront of you, if you didn't leave enough space you're also partly responsible for the damage to the car ahead of you. You didn't mitigate potential damage.


It really depends on the situation.

Let's say there's a hole on a golf course that is a dog-leg. It goes straight and then hooks to the left. There are houses on the left side of the fairway that are all protected by trees and bushes. This is to help prevent errant balls from sailing into the back yards of the neigbours. When the houses were build they were built with extra thick protective glass windows. That way if a ball would get through the trees they wouldn't break. Additionally the course is designed so there's a wind tunnel that will help carry the ball forward and prevent it from hooking (slicing I mix the two up) left.

Now, one of the houses down the row is purchased by a family, the homeowner replaced all their windows with cheap thin windows, and clear cut the trees in his back yard. This leaves a gap in the tree barrier. Because of this gap the wind tunnel now will suck balls to the left into the backyard of the new homeowner.

So a ball is hit that normally would have hit the trees and fell in the rough, but because there are no trees combined with the new wind tunnel, the ball sails through the hole in the trees, and hits the window of the house, which is thin and breaks.

The homeowner not only did not take any steps to protect their property, they actually took steps to make it more hazardous.

Should the golfer be 100% responsible for the broken window? Should he take responsibility for the ball he hit? Or is the homeowner responsible to some degree?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Additionally, what if the same scenario happens, but the ball doesn't hit the new homeowners house, but the house next to them? Due to the force of the wind tunnel the ball picked up speed, enough to break the thick glass (whereas if there was no wind tunnel it would have bounced off).

Is the golfer responsible? The homeowner of the broken window? The golf course? Or the neighbour who clear cut the trees creating a wind tunnel and opening for the houses to get hit?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now assume the golfer was never on this hole before, he's a traveller playing the hole for the first time. He read the course materials, and knows the lay out of the hole. However the materials the course supplied him with state that there are trees all along the hole, they haven't been updated to include the now clear cut area. Based on the information he had he hit a shot where he tried to hug the left side of the narrow fairway, without worry of hitting the houses as there is a barrier there for protection.

But due to the wind tunnel his ball is sucked in, breaks the thin window of the house behind the clear cut area.

Is the golfer still responsible? Should he "man-up" and pay for the entire cost of damages in either of the above two scenarios?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Assume that due to altitude, location, etc that the physics of the scenario would work.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

But you have a responsibility to mitigate your damages. That's why if you're hit from behind when you're stopped at a red light, and you go into the car infront of you, if you didn't leave enough space you're also partly responsible for the damage to the car ahead of you. You didn't mitigate potential damage.

Neither did the car in front of you. Why isn't the driver of the front car somewhat responsible for not pulling forward with a car too close to them? They knew the risks of someone pulling up behind them too closely and they didn't try to fix that risk. But that car in the front would get no blame because they didn't hit anyone, just like the house didn't move in front of the ball, so they are not responsible.

If you are playing a course that has houses on it you are assuming the risk by playing there and taking that chance. It's not like these houses are hidden and pop up out of no where people know when they are playing a certain course with a certain design. Don't play if you can't keep things under control or you can't figure out your own game. Homeowners living on a golf course or not aren't responsible for other people's damage to their property. Just like if you moved in beside a school, if a kid kicks a ball through your window is it your fault for living near a playground? Does the school pay for it? Or would the kid/parents pay for it?

Great write up but it still shouldn't matter what the homeowner did or didn't do.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

But you have a responsibility to mitigate your damages. That's why if you're hit from behind when you're stopped at a red light, and you go into the car infront of you, if you didn't leave enough space you're also partly responsible for the damage to the car ahead of you. You didn't mitigate potential damage.

That's not really how the concept of mitigation is understood in the law.

Your obligation to mitigate your own damages requires you to take reasonable measures to stop the bleeding, not necessarily to prevent it altogether.

To use a concrete example, if you are wrongfully dismissed from your employment, you have a duty to mitigate your damages by taking reasonable steps to secure new employment. You can't sit on your couch eating Doritos and let the damages for lost wages pile up.

Back to your car accident example, you may be liable for damages caused to the car in front of you because you failed to keep a proper distance between it and your vehicle. That is negligence on your part. You may not be fully responsible for all of the damages as others were also negligent but it doesn't technically have anything to do with mitigating your damages.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by fredr123

That's not really how the concept of mitigation is understood in the law.

Your obligation to mitigate your own damages requires you to take reasonable measures to stop the bleeding, not necessarily to prevent it altogether.

To use a concrete example, if you are wrongfully dismissed from your employment, you have a duty to mitigate your damages by taking reasonable steps to secure new employment. You can't sit on your couch eating Doritos and let the damages for lost wages pile up.

Back to your car accident example, you may be liable for damages caused to the car in front of you because you failed to keep a proper distance between it and your vehicle. That is negligence on your part. You may not be fully responsible for all of the damages as others were also negligent but it doesn't technically have anything to do with mitigating your damages.

Fair enough, would you be negligent then?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Fair enough, would you be negligent then?

I'm rarely negligent.