Hm that's anothee point. If you're a golfer that lives 225ish out from the tee boxes, the money you save on golf balls should be easy to put towards replacement windows.

quote:

---

Haven't heard back from the OP.

---

Forgot I posted this. I was out of town all week on business so not much time on Texags.

You guys are missing the whole point of my post. I was just pointing out that breaking a window on the first hole of play makes for a crappy day.

BTW-The gentleman that came out of the house was very polite and we exchanged information. I called my home owners to see if they covered such a circumstance. Long story short, they did. My insurance reimbursed the homeowner for the total cost of the window, which was 179.00. If my insurance didn't cover it I was still planning to pay for it.

I knew by law I was not required to pay for his window, but I willing to cover the cost even if it was out of pocket. Now if the person had some specialty window on the golf course and it was extremely expensive I would have paid up to 200.00 (normal replacement cost), and the remaining cost would be his issue to deal with.

Had he been an ass about it I might have been less willing to pay up as well. I owe him 200 bucks for the window, he owes me 200 bucks for being an as$hole. See we're even.


Most important my team finished in a three way tie for 8th with a fat payout of 13.00/each so I still came out ahead!

quote:

---

Had he been an ass about it I might have been less willing to pay up as well. I owe him 200 bucks for the window, he owes me 200 bucks for being an as$hole. See we're even.

---

Well said.

If I'm trying to hit a good golf shot and hit a house instead, then I'm not paying. Period.

Can you imagine asking a baseball/softball player to pay for that broken windshield resulting from a foulball? Should that player be "responsible for his/her actions"? That would be hogwash. And yes, that is a perfect analogy. The spectators of that sporting event assumed the risk of parking their car in a risky spot. Just like the yuppie punk who *****es about his golf course residence being peppered with golf balls.

If you don't want the risk of a broken windshield, don't got to high school baseball games. If you don't want your window broken, move the **** off the golf course.

Sorry I'm in a bad mood this morning and self-righteous punks on internet forums aren't helping.

And for the record, paying for the window is not the "right thing to do".

What a thread

All I know is that now that I'm aware my insurance will cover broken windows, etc. I will be cutting the corner on every dogleg!

Yeah you're gonna want to avoid putting too many liability claims on your record. I say that as an agent. Just pay out of pocket or don't pay at all. Or if you use your insurance, just do it once. IMO.

just a heads up for those assuming the law is on your side...

i talked to my buddy that runs a course (with no houses on it) about this issue. he told me a few courses really struggle with this and have started trying to impose "terms and conditions" on golfers by posting those terms at the pro shop or on the scorecard. by playing, the course takes the position that the golfer has agreed to those terms and conditions. one of those terms could be that the golfer is responsible for damage to the course or private property.

whether that's enforceable or not is another issue, but it at least changes the fact pattern considered in the published court cases.

i did a quick google search and found an example:

quote:

---

Sorry I'm in a bad mood this morning and self-righteous punks on internet forums aren't helping.

And for the record, paying for the window is not the "right thing to do".

---

Said the self-righteous punk.

jackie childs,

I am no lawyer, but I really don't think that those policies have anything to do with the law. My understanding:

As a business, the golf course has the right to establish their own rules and policies. If you break those rules and policies they can ask you to leave. If they had cause to ban you, they could even call the cops on you for trespassing if you didn't leave or if you came back.

However, if the homeowner took you to court and sued you for breaking their window, then the law in most states says that they are SOL because they assumed the risk when they bought the house. In the eyes of the law (most places) someone hitting a window is not inherently negligent and the burden of proof is on the homeowner.

Sometimes the course itself can be liable and several have been successfully sued because of tees being aimed in a bad direction or having a really flawed course layout.


Foul ball analogy is probably the best one I've heard. Can't say I disagree with AgProg's logic.

DadAg,

If you were at a high school baseball game and your car window was broken by a foul ball, would your expectation be that the kid should pay for it?

Random side note:

I once played with a guy who said that he lived (or used to live) somewhere where part of his HOA fees paid for an insurance policy that covered damage due to golf balls. Seems like an interesting solution.

I think he was a little off on the high school baseball analogy. I thought of it as a men's softball league where parking is behind the outfield fence. The better analogy may be if someone parked past the outfield fence, but in foul territory. If that car got hit by a foul, would be home-run ball would you expect the batter (around the same age as you) to pay for it for pulling a good hit?

What about the high school baseball game scenario isn't analogous to a golfer breaking a window?

I've read the softball scenario you presented a couple of times and I guess I don't understand what you're trying to illustrate.

Not flaming or trying to argue, I just really am not getting it.

quote:

---

The evidence supports the trial court's findings and conclusions that appellants suffered destruction of, or injury to, personal property. Each appellant testified concerning his individual damages and supplied a repair bill documenting the cost of the damages. However, the record reflects neither legal nor factual evidence that either DAC or the individual golfers intended to commit an act which violated a property right. Id. During a game of golf, on the Gold course, the individual golfers intend to hit golf balls toward hole number six. This does not violate a property right. The fact that the ball may "slice" or "hook" onto appellants' properties is an unintended consequence.

Malouf v. Dallas Ath. Country Club, 837 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Tex. App. Dallas 1992)

---

Presented here exclusively for ****s and giggles. Not to be construed as legal advice. I just thought y'all might get a kick out of reading what the courts in Texas have said on the matter out of curiosity.

Also, New York on the subject. Again, offered purely as a thought experiment.

quote:

---

THE PLAYER

Several reasons -- any one of which is sufficient -- support the decisions of the trial court and the Appellate Division that a prima facie case of negligence was not proven against the player: assumption of the risk; lack of foreseeability; lack of duty and failure to prove lack of due care.

. . .

The admission that this was a "bad shot" is not sufficient to warrant submission to a jury. Plaintiff made no effort to show that defendant failed to use due care in striking the ball. Pursuant to our rules of practice, plaintiff took an examination before trial of defendant. Not a single question was directed at the manner in which defendant swung. Moreover, two witnesses, who observed the shot, were available to plaintiff. Thus plaintiff could have shown, for example, that defendant aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm. This case does not require application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and we will not permit an inference of negligence to be drawn merely from the fact that this shot "hooked" sharply.

Golfers are notorious in the tedious preparation they give to a shot. They know that concentration is the key to the game. Yet even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional "hook" or "slice". For this reason, persons on the golf course other than players are charged with assuming the risk

One last comment on the lack of foreseeability is necessary. The player, observing the natural barrier between the thirteenth fairway and plaintiff's property, would have less cause than the country club to assume that a golf ball could pass through or over it. The mere fact that a person may have been careless in the performance of an act does not necessarily result in actionable negligence. It is only required that the care be commensurate with the risk and danger. The plaintiff failed to show that the act of this player as to him had possibilities of danger so many and apparent as to entitle him to be protected against the doing of it. His burden of proof required that the act testified to, which he asserts constituted negligence, was not merely possible, but probable. Here, only an extraordinarily misdirected shot attaining great height could possibly drop on plaintiff's property because of the height and density of the protective barrier. Against this kind of unlikely misfortune, the law does not confer protection. Looking back from the alleged injury to the event, we consider it highly exceptional that a player's conduct would have brought about harm.

---

I guess when I first read the high school baseball analogy I thought about what I would do if a kid broke my car window while I was watching the game versus what I would do if an adult broke my window at a softball game, but that is a completely different topic than what OP mentioned. My mistake.

quote:

---

I am no lawyer, but I really don't think that those policies have anything to do with the law. My understanding:

As a business, the golf course has the right to establish their own rules and policies. If you break those rules and policies they can ask you to leave. If they had cause to ban you, they could even call the cops on you for trespassing if you didn't leave or if you came back.

---

i disagree, at least per my friend, they have everything to do with the law and trying to change the results of current law on the matter (which many have referenced on here). my guess is that the policies are intended to create a contractual agreement of responsibility and the private property owners are intended third party beneficiaries of that agreement.

now, whether they actually do or not is another question.

and regarding the cases cited, if you have a binding contractual agreement to be responsible (as the course would argue you do), the golfer's intent or negligence is irrelevant. the legal precedent cited in those cases wouldn't necessarily apply to these new facts.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The evidence supports the trial court's findings and conclusions that appellants suffered destruction of, or injury to, personal property. Each appellant testified concerning his individual damages and supplied a repair bill documenting the cost of the damages. However, the record reflects neither legal nor factual evidence that either DAC or the individual golfers intended to commit an act which violated a property right. Id. During a game of golf, on the Gold course, the individual golfers intend to hit golf balls toward hole number six. This does not violate a property right. The fact that the ball may "slice" or "hook" onto appellants' properties is an unintended consequence.

Malouf v. Dallas Ath. Country Club, 837 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Tex. App. Dallas 1992)

---

Presented here exclusively for ****s and giggles. Not to be construed as legal advice. I just thought y'all might get a kick out of reading what the courts in Texas have said on the matter out of curiosity.

---

Have never argued that you have to pay "legally".

As to DAC (they may have switched nines since '92), if you hit a house from the 6th hole on either the front or back, maybe you should try raquetball.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am no lawyer, but I really don't think that those policies have anything to do with the law. My understanding:

As a business, the golf course has the right to establish their own rules and policies. If you break those rules and policies they can ask you to leave. If they had cause to ban you, they could even call the cops on you for trespassing if you didn't leave or if you came back.

---

i disagree, at least per my friend, they have everything to do with the law and trying to change the results of current law on the matter (which many have referenced on here). my guess is that the policies are intended to create a contractual agreement of responsibility and the private property owners are intended third party beneficiaries of that agreement.

now, whether they actually do or not is another question.

and regarding the cases cited, if you have a binding contractual agreement to be responsible (as the course would argue you do), the golfer's intent or negligence is irrelevant. the legal precedent cited in those cases wouldn't necessarily apply to these new facts.

---

I can't envision a scenario where small print on a score card would ever constitute a contractual agreement. I suspect anything short of a process of signing a waiver prior to paying wouldn't hold water. Given that, I suspect this isn't a big enough issue to warrant it.

quote:

---

just a heads up for those assuming the law is on your side...

i talked to my buddy that runs a course (with no houses on it) about this issue. he told me a few courses really struggle with this and have started trying to impose "terms and conditions" on golfers by posting those terms at the pro shop or on the scorecard. by playing, the course takes the position that the golfer has agreed to those terms and conditions. one of those terms could be that the golfer is responsible for damage to the course or private property.

whether that's enforceable or not is another issue, but it at least changes the fact pattern considered in the published court cases.

i did a quick google search and found an example:

---

Posting terms in the clubhouse or on the scorecard doesn't create a contractual agreement. I don't think you can say there was a meeting of the minds.

It's like any place that has a sign that says "We're not responsible if you get hurt". That sign means jack. If you get hurt because of their negligence, they're still responsible. Signs and inferred rules don't change the law.

Bought new windows last year. Mine are covered by manufacturer for life for any breaking. This includes things like golf balls, baseballs thrown at it by my kids, etc. That's the easy solution

I agree. Clearly the solution is for you to buy new windows for everyone who lives on a golf course.

BE is right. The jackwads that post "assumption signage" are doing it to prevent PI claims -- but it doesn't change the law.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The evidence supports the trial court's findings and conclusions that appellants suffered destruction of, or injury to, personal property. Each appellant testified concerning his individual damages and supplied a repair bill documenting the cost of the damages. However, the record reflects neither legal nor factual evidence that either DAC or the individual golfers intended to commit an act which violated a property right. Id. During a game of golf, on the Gold course, the individual golfers intend to hit golf balls toward hole number six. This does not violate a property right. The fact that the ball may "slice" or "hook" onto appellants' properties is an unintended consequence.

Malouf v. Dallas Ath. Country Club, 837 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Tex. App. Dallas 1992)

---

Presented here exclusively for ****s and giggles. Not to be construed as legal advice. I just thought y'all might get a kick out of reading what the courts in Texas have said on the matter out of curiosity.

---

FWIW, in this case they were trying to recover under a trespass action and all that is being said here is they did not intentionally hit the ball into the yard which would be required under said trespass action.

Doesn't actually answer the question that has been posed in this thread.

Right, but they were trying trespass because negligence has always been a loser. It's not negligent to hit a slice anymore than it's negligence to skid on ice in a car absent some other action that makes the conduct unreasonable (speeding on ice, trying to cut the corner on a dogleg).

I only posted that (and left out the trespass language) because I was pointing out what courts have said about slices and miss-hits.