I had an errant shot today that broke a window on a house located on the course. I spoke with the owner and exchanged information. I fully plan to pay for the damages. However, I have heard different answers on who is responsible for damages to property. Some say it is the golfers responsibility and other say it is an "assumption of risk" on the owner for choosing to live on the course. This is the first time this has happened to me. What is everyone's here opinion?

Congrats on being a man and fessing up to the damage. Nothing is worse than golfing with someone who hits into a parking lot or onto a deck and then just hurry as fast as they can to drop very far away from the site of the incident.

I think it depends on where you were playing. Almost all courses that I play at have signs that say that you are responsible for any damage caused by your shots, but I've heard of some places where golf ball damage to houses on the course are covered by club dues or HOA dues.

Was the dude an a## about it? Obviously no one likes to have a window broken, but whether the golfer or the homeowner is responsible it shouldn't be unexpected for golf balls to end up in your yard/porch/window if you live on a course...

No, he was not a jerk about it at all. He was waiting in the back yard as I came driving up. He called me back after getting an estimate and said he would call me after the window was installed and he had an invoice. The quote he received was actually not as bad as I thought it was going to be. He actually thanked me for being understanding of the situation.

My drive landed just inside the cart path. The houses on this hole are 15-20 yards off the cart path, so it wasn't a horrible shank. That was the most frustrating thing about it. I heard it hit the house, but thought it just hit the roof until he pointed out the window.

quote:

---

My drive landed just inside the cart path. The houses on this hole are 15-20 yards off the cart path

---

The ball bounced back ~15-20 yards after hitting and breaking a window? I bet the guy threw it back out there so he could catch you in case you had decided to ignore the situation.

^^^ nevermind. You didn't hit the window on the drive. Open mouth insert foot.

I think paying for it is the right thing to do, but if you were to challenge it in court, you'd most likely win unless you were being wreckless with your shot (like trying to hit it over the house, etc). It's not negligence or a trespass on your part to have hit an errant golf shot.

And instead of an opinion, I'll actually give you a case example that occurred in Texas.

quote:

---

Malouf v. Dallas Athletic Country Club, 837 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. App-Dallas 1992, no pet.)

In reply to:

Appellants own homes adjacent to the number six hole of one of appellee's (DAC) two golf courses. Appellants sued DAC for damages caused by golf balls spiking their property.

The gist of trespass to personalty is an injury to, or interference with, possession, unlawfully, with or without the exercise of physical force. Destruction of, or injury to, personal property, regardless of negligence, may be a trespass. A trespass is usually regarded as an intentional tort in the sense that it involves an intent to commit an act which violates a property right, or would be practically certain to have that effect, although the actor may not know that the act he intends to commit is such a violation. Unless the intended act would violate a property right, the actor's liability for unintended consequences ordinarily depends upon proof of negligence.

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. Appellants had the burden of proof at trial and on appeal of showing that the evidence conclusively established the elements of trespass. Because appellants failed to demonstrate that DAC or the individual golfers intentionally caused the golf balls to damage appellants' personal property, we cannot say that the trial court's conclusion of law that the DAC did not trespass is erroneous.

---

Like I mentioned, I'd pay since I was the one that hit the ****ty shot and broke the window, but there is a difference between what's right vs. what's a legal obligation.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/21/2010 9:03a).]

Paying for the window is the right thing to do. You may have first dollar coverage under your homeowners policy. A common coverage "physical damage to property of others
may allow coverage for this accident. call your agent. If you have the coverage, the claim will not affect future premiums.

just a thought.

I wouldn't pay. That's the risk you take for buying a house next to a golf course.

I probably wouldn't pay either. Even if it only costs $150, that's 3-4 rounds of golf. You are under no legal obligation to pay unless you intended to hit the house or be reckless.

And I always get a kick out of the signs that say that golfers are responsible for property damage.

quote:

---

You are under no legal obligation to pay unless you intended to hit the house or be reckless

---

They might not choose to pursue the matter, but I don't think that it is certain that this is true. The case discussed above apparently involved the homeowners suing the golf club; not the same thing as whether the individual golfer is liable.

Unintentionally hitting a ball OB - and into a house or a car on a passing road - is considered negligence, at least in Oklahoma. I would be very surprised if state law varies on this point. I think that a golfer would be found liable for any damage (or injury) caused by his OB shot.

[This message has been edited by TulsAg (edited 8/22/2010 5:37p).]

[This message has been edited by TulsAg (edited 8/22/2010 5:41p).]

So if your driving your car and you hit a mail box you don't have to pay for that, because that is the risk of putting your mailbox next to a street.

I guess my kids should not walk on the side walk next to the street... Especially when you drive.

Accidents happen, man up and pay for them!

quote:

---

The case discussed above apparently involved the homeowners suing the golf club; not the same thing as whether the individual golfer is liable.

---

Read the ruling. It says the rule of law is no different whether it's the golf course or the individual golfer. No negligence. No intent to trespass.

I'm also friends with a golf pro here in Dallas and he's also aware of a golfer who got taken to small claims and won.

If that's not the case in Oklahoma, I'd be curious to see some proof via a link/law/case.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/22/2010 6:58p).]

The case cited merely says the trial court was not necessarily wrong to say that there was no trespass by the DAC. It indicates that the appellate court may also think that there was no trespass by an individual. However, that was apparently only dicta, and not part of the ruling. More importantly, the ruling is limited to trespass. It certainly does NOT say that an individual is not responsible for damage to property.

Beyond that, as OldSchool says, if you break someone's window, pay for the repair.

[This message has been edited by Big Shoulders (edited 8/22/2010 7:01p).]

I don't have access to a copy of the opinion, but from what I have seen, it appears to find no trespass (which requires intent) and does not directly address negligence (which does not) . Nor does it appear that the golfer was sued so as to directly raise the issue of his liability. (Perhaps the opinion does discuss the golfer's potential iability for negligence in parts I haven't seen. )

Further, a quick Google search suggests that there may be contrary Texas authority with no controlling supreme court decision.
http://www.myavidgolfer.com/back_issues/?view=department&department_id=48&issue_id=116

As I said, I haven't researched Texas law; my only point was to urge caution in accepting the pat answer that if you didn't intentionally hit at the house, you aren't liable. Or that assumption of the risk by the homeowner is an absolute defense.

The practical side of it is that the homeowner probably seldom is right there to identify the golfer who hit his house. The right thing to do, of course, is accept responsibility. At least in Okla. - and I think most places - it would be a matter of legal liability as well.

quote:

---

Beyond that, as OldSchool says, if you break someone's window, pay for the repair.

---

I agree, which I stated from the outset.

quote:

---

Unintentionally hitting a ball OB - and into a house or a car on a passing road - is considered negligence, at least in Oklahoma. I would be very surprised if state law varies on this point. I think that a golfer would be found liable for any damage (or injury) caused by his OB shot.

---

I'm fairly confident that assumption of risk is a defense to negligence in Oklahoma.

quote:

---

So if your driving your car and you hit a mail box you don't have to pay for that, because that is the risk of putting your mailbox next to a street.

---

Not a good analogy. One has a duty not to hit a mail box while driving, and assumption of the risk would obviously not be a defense here. When buying a house on a golf course, one obviously assumes the risk of having the house hit by golf balls.

quote:

---

I guess my kids should not walk on the side walk next to the street... Especially when you drive.

---

For real? Wow.

I've always felt the golf course home/lot is WAY overrated and even though I'm an avid golfer, would never care to live on a course. Lack of privacy, lack of safety, and some occasional property damage sounds like a great combination for a winning home site formula. The lots that I'd consider acceptable/attractive are pretty rare.

I like my kids to be able to play outside without the fear of a skull being fractured by a Pro V1. Also, I don't really need a group of 4 dip****s oogling my attractive wife sitting by the pool every 8 minutes.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/22/2010 7:32p).]

And I could see instances where I might offer to pay. Fortunately, I can't remember hitting a house and I've hit over plenty of them. Well, at least in Texas. In Colorado, it seems there is enough common sense to not put houses on doglegs and to space them pretty far from the fairway.

I remember discussing this briefly in law school, but that was five years ago. From what I remember, assumption of the risk would almost always beat negligence in the golfer/house scenario, meaning that the plaintiff would need to prove an intentional tort. Thus, the need to prove the requisite intent.

My understanding is that the assumption of risk can only limit your personal injury liability, not damage to real property, but in any case, proving negligence or trespass would still be a high hurdle for a homeowner to overcome (at least in most states from what I've read, etc) even when the damage is just real property. The main tactic golf courses and homeowners seem to have available is to pull the wool over golfers eyes with the "golfers are responsible for damages" signs, etc., when in reality it's not nearly that simple and the golfer would stand a pretty good chance of defending himself in most states, if he cared to.

Like I've said before, I'll still pay if I break it, but there are some courses that are an absolute joke (see Plantation in Frisco for example, I don't recommend it for anyone with claustraphobia issues) and while I'd still pay, it would be somewhat begrudgingly.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/22/2010 7:34p).]

DD - Not aware of an Okla S. Ct. opinion. Opinions of our courts of appeal are advisory only. One that is sometimes mentioned is Thomas v. Wheat, 2006 OK CIV APP 106 (2006) , in which the court reversed a golfer's summary judgment and sent the case back for trial applying a "zone of risk" analysis to define the scope of the golfer's duty for negligence pursposes.

In that case, a painter on an adjacent house was hit and sued. The court stated--

quote:

---

We find that the zone of risk rule imposes upon golfers a duty to warn persons who are within the flight path specifically intended by the golfer, or who are within the area in which a golfer has a propensity to shank shots.

---

Not a property damage case, and really goes to the duty to warn (Fore!) , but the point is that liability may lie where an OB shot is foreseeable at least up here) .

I also have seen signs on city courses citing liability by city ordinance. Fortunately, I haven't had the need to check them!

I am aware of small claims cases (as most would be) in which golfer's were held liable. I suppose there might be an argument that a slice was unforseeable if you never hit one, but at least up here, you'd lose if you tried to fight a case like this.


PA - Oklahoma does recognize assumption of the risk. But as to its application in a case like this, the court stated--

quote:

---

There is a presumption that a plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from an errant golf ball if he or she is within the bounds of a golf course,] but no such presumption applies if the plaintiff is outside the boundary.

---

Again, not arguing one way or the other here. If anyone ever really sued in a case like this, there may be case-specific arguments that carry the day. My only point was, and is, that I think it would be unwise to assume that you have no liability for damage caused by an OB shot.

Interesting discussion.

[This message has been edited by TulsAg (edited 8/22/2010 7:40p).]

Overall, I think it would be wise to either pay up or haul ass.

Agreed.

Probably sleep better if you just "man up" .

A friend of mine put his drive right through a plate glass window on the country club course one day. The owner walked right up to him and handed him his ball, as she saw him hit it. He offered to pay, but she said her insurance covered it as they had "golf course" coverage for being on a course.

You might offer to pay the deductible if it is cheaper.

I've always taken the approach that if my insurance will cover it, fine, but if not then it's on the homeowner who knowingly bought a home on a golf course. Never actually had the situation arise, thankfully. Did potentially break a window years ago but the house was empty and we aren't 100% sure I actually broke it or not. The ball sat in a pile of glass on the ledge for a month - it was a double pane and only the outer pane broke.

I have played with an insurance buddy of mine who told me that It is the owners responsiblity. The owner is the one that bought the lot on a golf course and property damage is an "assumed risk".

You pay more for home insurance on a golf course lot because of this.

Its damn gentlemanly though to offer to pay. John Wayne would've.

Your insurance buddy should have also said that the golfers personal liability under a home or renters policy would also pay for it.

And I know of no additional cost for home insurance just because a house is on the course or 1, 3,or 5 blocks away. (Speaking Texas only)

It does disturb me that many seem to be looking for "an out" to something that they caused, accidental or not.

You cause damage to someone or something, you are responsible for it.

[This message has been edited by DadAG10 (edited 8/23/2010 4:55p).]

so a homerun/foul ball that goes into a parking lot and damages a car should be the responsability of the batter?

That was going to be my question. Through HS and college I drove a pickup with a decent-size ding in the passenger door due to a line drive foul ball from a teammate my senior year. The real ***** was that it barely cleared his own truck and hit mine instead, which was parked in the spot next to his.

Long story short, it never would have occurred to me to even ask him to pay for repair. I knew baseball was being played and elected to park in a lot where there was a possiblity of being hit. His hitting a foul ball into that lot was no less negligent than a golfer hitting a slice off the tee. Both are just part of their respective games.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/23/2010 5:09p).]

quote:

---

You cause damage to someone or something, you are responsible for it.

---

The law disagrees in many instances. Should people just ignore the law?

If I broke a window on the course, I would pay to fix it. No idea what the law says on the issue.

quote:

---

Long story short, it never would have occurred to me to even ask him to pay for repair. I knew baseball was being played and elected to park in a lot where there was a possiblity of being hit. His hitting a foul ball into that lot was no less negligent than a golfer hitting a slice off the tee. Both are just part of their respective games.

---

+1

Yeah, if you buy a house on a $40/round muni, you should expect to have a bunch of 30+ HCs shelling your place. I might buy a house on Colonial or TPC Las Colinas, but those folks living off Sherril #2 are out of their minds.

you broke it you pay for it.

One of the reasons of what's wrong with America...let's not take responsibility.

Gimme a break. DIAF.

Kind of like all of the patio homes on the right side of 18 at Greatwood. A friend of mine moved from Louisiana and was looking at one of these homes with his agent when he asked about the strange looking windows on the back of the house. Turned out the previous owner had replaced the glass with plexiglass due to repeated broken windows. No sooner did the agent finish explaining it that a ball bounced off of the roof. Decision made right then and there not to even consider buying the home.

The only place I would consider buying a golf course home would be on a teebox, even with or behind the tee markers, especially on a public or semi-private course.

quote:

---

you broke it you pay for it.

One of the reasons of what's wrong with America...let's not take responsibility.

Gimme a break. DIAF.

---

If you voluntarily purchase a house next to a golf course, you should take responsibility for any damages caused by wayward golf balls. You accepted that risk when you bought the house.

It's like buying a house next to a pig farm and then complaining about the smell.

Proud: "The law disagrees in many instances. Should people just ignore the law?"

Why not, they ignore traffic laws all the time!

Does this statement mean that you believe ALL laws are good and correct?