House on Golf Course

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by New Era

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.

I'm afraid that you are well off the mark (like an errant drive headed for an adjacent backyard). Generally speaking, police investigate criminal (and to a lesser extent) some regulatory offences. They do not investigate tortious conduct. When police investigate "property damage" complaints, it is generally to investigate the criminal code offence of mischief (but sometimes other criminal code offences: arson etc.). It has nothing to do with civil liability (although restitution orders are handy shortcuts around the long, tortuous path of civil litigation [especially for small amounts].

Also I would note that criminal code offences require mens rea (for example, intent) to be proven. Torts do not. [EDIT: Well, this is a bit of a simplification. Some torts do have a mental element. Whatever.]

[Lanny_McDonald]

Thanks for the explanation!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Damn.

When I mentioned Dunning-Kruger earlier I wasn't anticipating being provided with such a staggering example of it. I'm almost tempted to think we're being trolled. I've never seen someone attempt to shoehorn force majeure into an accidental armchair diatribe about criminal mischief.

Whoof. That is just... next level embarrassing.

[Lanny_McDonald]

You did such a phenomenal job of explaining the difference in the law (criminal versus civil) to clarify the the issue - no, not really. Makarov did a good job of that. You did nothing and injected more confusion by introducing something and not explaining the difference. Makarov was kind enough to explain the difference between the two concepts and how they apply. Still lots of questions out there though and I’m hoping the real lawyer will help out.

Question to Makarov, what determines criminality in the damage to property? Intent? Action? Value? It seems the statutes referenced are pretty broad and open to interpretation. In the US, the Sheriff has been involved with such complaints/investigations, so where is the line drawn? Having been involved in several of these instances on the course side of things, I understand the possible civil repercussions from adjacent land owners (never had a judgement go against the facility) but from a player causing damage perspective, where is this line? Posted signs of responsibility don’t mean anything, and the hope of getting damages paid by the facility are almost zero, so how else does a land owner get who they suspect of doing doing damage to pay up without first involving an authority in the shape of law enforcement to force the issue?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

The bigger threat now is the constant threat of golf courses being converted into condo and additional housing. Courses are being bought up as a long term play for residential development.

There are certain courses in the City I think it's just a matter of time before it goes to the developer.

This is kind of a worldwide epidemic as golf popularity in general is in a downturn and courses are closing at alarming rates all over the globe so I suppose it comes down to how long you plan on living in the house and the possible depreciation if the course shuts down. If you are looking at a long term commitment you may want to thoroughly investigate the long term viability of the course as you may end up with a back yard facing a bunch of condos. This actually happened to a friend of mine in the US. I remember years ago having beers on his porch viewing a beautiful scenic backdrop. A couple of years ago when I was there it was night and day as he's got this big fence and there's nothing but roof tops on the other side.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think anyone else was confused. But then, I don't think anyone else was dumb enough to think that there might be criminal law implications from having your drive hook off into someone's yard, so they probably hadn't put their mind to that.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think anyone else was confused. But then, I don't think anyone else was dumb enough to think that there might be criminal law implications from having your drive hook off into someone's yard, so they probably hadn't put their mind to that.

Not quite. Others asked similar questions that required clarification.

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?

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

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.

You had opportunity and failed to provide such clarification. Only Makarov provided any clarification on the division, and there is still some lack of clarity there. Instead you provided the same smug incomplete answer you always do and then provided a case that was ultimately unrelated to the question the OP presented. Markarov has provided some actual useful information in the discussion. You, not so much, even though your claims to authority. So how about we make this really easy and have you approach some basic scenarios with advice as to how the law works to protect individuals, property, and what course of action each have.

Scenario One: An individual buys a house on a golf course. The course was already there when the individual purchased the home. The house is struck by an errant golf ball. The owner has no idea where the shot came from or who struck the ball. What course of action does the home owner have? What action or responsibility does the golfer hold? What responsibility does the golf course hold?

Scenario Two: An individual buys a house on a golf course. The course was already there when the individual purchased the home. The house is struck by an errant golf ball. The owner has no idea where the shot came from or who struck the ball but observes a foursome pass by almost immediately after. What course of action does the home owner have? What action or responsibility does the golfer hold? What responsibility does the golf course hold?

Scenario Three: An individual buys a house on a golf course. The course was already there when the individual purchased the home. The house is struck by an errant golf ball. The owner can identify the group where the shot came from but is unclear on who struck the ball. What course of action does the home owner have? What action or responsibility does the golfer hold? What responsibility does the golf course hold?

Scenario Four: An individual buys a house on a golf course. The course was already there when the individual purchased the home. The house is struck by an errant golf ball. The owner has seen who struck the ball, but has no other witnesses other than those who are in the foursome. What course of action does the home owner have? What action or responsibility does the golfer hold? What responsibility does the golf course hold?

Scenario Five: An individual buys a house on a golf course. The course was already there when the individual purchased the home. The house is struck by a golf ball hit intentionally in line with the home. The owner knows who struck the ball but has no other witnesses. What course of action does the home owner have? What action or responsibility does the golfer hold? What responsibility does the golf course hold?

What applicable laws exist that owners should be aware of. Could their HOA rules impact or limit their actions? Is there potential criminal action in any of these scenarios? What is the best legal course of action for a home owner in protecting their property?

I think this will ultimately answer the OP's question and do a great service to all in understanding the issue.

[Tron_fdc]

I keep meaning to chime in here but I keep getting sidetracked at work.

Corsi: I generally consider myself a fairly intelligent person. I have a commerce degree, and I have taken university level Law courses (albeit only introductory law). I like to think I have at the very least a beginners grasp on what you posted.

To be honest though, I had trouble following you almost right from the start. The verbiage you are using is lawyer speak to me, and I have to read it 4 times to figure out what you're saying. I'm sure there were others in here thinking the same thing. It's no different than asking a professional engineer something; it might be childs play to them, but to us mere mortals it's all greek.

So no need to be dink about it. We don't all immerse ourselves in torts all day long, which is why I asked for a layman explanation, which you gave.

I feel like I learned something, so thanks for that!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

To be honest though, I had trouble following you almost right from the start. The verbiage you are using is lawyer speak to me, and I have to read it 4 times to figure out what you're saying. I'm sure there were others in here thinking the same thing. It's no different than asking a professional engineer something; it might be childs play to them, but to us mere mortals it's all greek.

Which is fine. Although I actually thought this was pretty straightforward:

Originally Posted by Me

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.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

which is why I asked for a layman explanation, which you gave.

I feel like I learned something, so thanks for that!

Glad it helped. And to be clear, I had no issue with your question (although laughing at someone who just had their window broken is kind of an a-hole thing to do, but I assumed you were joking about that).

Basically the reason I'm being a dink to New Era is partly that it's annoying when people represent themselves as having expertise that they don't have, and speak authoritatively on subjects they don't understand, and that's kind of his schtick. But mostly, it's that he seems to be a terrible human being, based on his posts here. He's one of the most unabashedly dishonest people I've ever come across on the internet, and that's saying something, given that I used to have a twitter account. So watching him fall on his face attempting to win internet points by talking jibberish on a subject he doesn't understand, and then continually embarrass himself while attempting to save face after minor needling from me is a lot less sad and a lot more funny that it would otherwise be. Even better that it's on a topic that is of no real importance whatsoever. He's on ignore, so I usually just act like he doesn't exist, and maybe I should have here, too, but hey, sometimes you have to have a little fun at the expense of someone who, quite frankly, deserves it.

But you're right, I'll cut it out and go back to observing my "ignore worthless people" mantra.

[Misterpants]

I've never seen the appeal of living on a golf course. Someone mentioned they liked having the privacy of not backing onto other neighbours, but I think it would be the exact opposite. A parade of people all day from April to October walking past your yard staring in at you. Especially if you are out in your yard, people would laser sight in on you to see what you're doing. No thanks.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

I've never seen the appeal of living on a golf course. Someone mentioned they liked having the privacy of not backing onto other neighbours, but I think it would be the exact opposite. A parade of people all day from April to October walking past your yard staring in at you. Especially if you are out in your yard, people would laser sight in on you to see what you're doing. No thanks.

I never would have pegged Misterpants as a backyard nudist.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I never would have pegged Misterpants as a backyard nudist.

Remembering his old username....I would.

The pants...they just get in the way.

[Misterpants]

Wouldn't want my Schwanz to be mistaken for a flag pin when I'm laying in the grass.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

Wouldn't want my Schwanz to be mistaken for a flag pin when I'm laying in the grass.

If its a public hole they couldnt hit you with a rifle.

Trust me. I have stories.