I didn't read this thread, but I think the rule of thumb is:

If the house was there before the course then its the golfer who is responsible.

If the course was built before the house its the home owners responsibility.

quote:

---

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

---

I think the proper question is whether one should voluntarily give up a legal defense because they don't morally agree with it? Since I think assumption of the risk makes perfect sense here, I think it would be really stupid to give up my AR defense. However, I have no problem with people paying for property damage when they are not obligated to. Just don't expect me to, unless I decide to out of the goodness of my heart.

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?

---

What happened to the concept of doing the "right thing" simply because it is the "right thing?" If that's "ignoring the law" because the law doesn't make you pay for the damage you caused (the originial premise in this thread, which I question) , then I think that the answer to this question is "Yes." You offer to do the right thing even if "the law" doesn't require it.

Honor and integrity call for actions that may or may not be required by the law. Indeed, a law should not be required to compel people to take responsibility for their actions. But in today's society, it seems the moral compass is gone and conduct is determined more by "what I can get away with" because either (1) I'm not legally required to do something or (2) I won't be caught.

I think there is some onus on the owner of the home as well.

Proud,

Maybe you should change your name, don't know how anyone could be proud of trying to do anything & everything to avoid personal responsiblity.

Must be a new generation thing (or an attorney at work).

Anyone take an ethics course lately?

[This message has been edited by DadAG10 (edited 8/24/2010 11:04a).]

Some of you need to relax with the personal judgments. It's hard to deny there isn't at least some responsibility on the owner's part. There is definitely another side to this coin that is a valid point and doesn't make one a bad person morally for believing so.

If I owned a golf course lot, I wouldn't exactly turn away $$$ if someone offered to pay for what they broke, but my feeling would be very similar to how I felt about my dinged truck. I'm the one that elected to put (or buy) property in harm's way, so a lot of it is on me. I can honestly say I wouldn't be flagging golfers down looking to get their billing address.

That said, I'm not going to sit here and hurl personal insults about your morals if you're the type of homeowner that expects everyone else to pay even though you elected to put your property in harm's way and knew it would get hit.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/24/2010 11:41a).]

So the howeowner shouldn't have any responsibility for buying a house on a golf course knowing that there is a high risk of property damage due to errant golf balls?

It has nothing to do with integrity or being ethical. You made a decision to live next to a golf course so you should consider broken windows as a luxury tax.

[This message has been edited by RealTalk (edited 8/24/2010 11:19a).]

My post probably came across a bit preachy; sorry about that.

I agree that if you buy a house on a golf course - or park in a parking lot alongside a fairway or near a green - you are knowingly assuming the risk that your house or car will get hit. I still question whether that legally absolves the golfer from liability. But regardless of whether he could be sued for it, I still believe that the person who causes the damage should offer to pay for it.

I (the golfer) see the house/cars over there, I know that I can/may/often do slice, and I'm taking the responsibility to keep my ball from leaving the course and hurting someone or something. I decide whether to wail away with my driver or use a 3-wood or some other "safer" shot to avoid the OB slice.

Is the answer any different if you break a window vs. bean the homeowner's two-year-old while he's swinging on the swingset in the backyard? How about if you hit a car on an adjacent street and it crashes into a telephone pole injuring the occupants? I don't think so.

To each his own. If I break it, I offer to fix it. I don't need to do any legal research to come to that conclusion.

[This message has been edited by TulsAg (edited 8/24/2010 11:48a).]

to all those taking the stance that the golfer "should" pay for it:

If your son or daughter hits a foul ball and it damages a car, are you (the parents) going to offer to fix the car? Is there any responsibility on the pitcher? or maybe there is some responsibility on the baseball or bat manufacturer? you are right, that is what is wrong with america, but not that people don't "own" up to their "mistakes" but that people don't realzie responsibility is a two way street.

quote:

---

I (the golfer) see the house/cars over there, I know that I can/may/often do slice, and I'm taking the responsibility to keep my ball from leaving the course and hurting someone or something.

---

A lot of golfers take precautions because they don't want to go OB, much less break someone's window, but the fact is that errant shots happen. And in many courses, you don't have to miss by a crazy amount to hit a house. Keeping your ball from leaving the course isn't some concept that's simply avoidable at all times.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/24/2010 12:54p).]

quote:

---

Is the answer any different...... How about if you hit a car on an adjacent street and it crashes into a telephone pole injuring the occupants? I don't think so.

---

Yes, hitting a car is different. A golfer would have a hard time succeeding on an assumption of the risk defense for causing damage to a moving car (ie: just driving on a road vs. making a choice to buy a house on a golf course). As far as hitting a telephone pole, proximate cause comes into play... "reasonably foreseeable" becomes an issue.

quote:

---

Proud,

Maybe you should change your name, don't know how anyone could be proud of trying to do anything & everything to avoid personal responsiblity.

---

Oh please, get over yourself. I disagree with you on who is responsible in a hypothetical situation, so I am now unethical?

TulsAg,

I agree with a lot of what you said in your first post on the 2nd page. I'm just not sure that paying for someone else's assumed risk is always the right thing in this sort of situation.

I hear you, proudaggie.

I mentioned this question over lunch with a group of colleagues and heard exactly the same arguments as here. No one knew the answer and most waffled between "it's negligence to hit OB, of course you're liable" and "maybe assumption of the risk applies to an adjacent homeowner. " Most basically said, "yeah, I would feel like I should offer to pay" either way. One actually had hit a moving car (his homeowner's insurance covered the damage) .

Let's hope we never have to face this problem!

I guess since I drive a car I assume all risks associated with driving a car and should someone go through a red light and broadside me, they shouldn't have to pay for damages.

Man up you p-u-s-s-i-e-s!

yea because thats EXACTLY the same situation

JHU...running a red light is against the law, so that person would be responsible. Hitting an errant golf shot is not illegal.

The only situation I would hypothetically hold the golfer responsible were if they were aiming at something not on the golf course's property (like trying to cut a dogleg and aiming over a house or yard and hitting said house or something in the yard).

I had the opportunity to buy a course facing house and shyed away from it because it was off the fairway and not even to or behind the tee boxes.

My number one consideration for not purchasing - errant golf shots.

Homeowners know the risks. If they don't, they're fooling themselves.

Played a few weeks ago in MO with my Brother in Law. Two holes on the course, were designed with 90 degree doglegs to the right. There were apartment buildings near the tees. The "home course" strategy was to hit over the buildings (though the tree were starting to get big enough to make this challenging.) I don't hit over buildings/parking lots/kids and people on purpose so I chose to just cut it around the dogleg.

The buildings' siding looked like it was in a war zone. Holes and patches completely peppered all over the buildings. Was the most idiotic thing I had seen on a course in a while. Oh and there were signs on the tees stating damage was the golfer's responsibility.

I wonder how many people hit the Old Course Hotel at St Andrews?

quote:

---

I guess since I drive a car I assume all risks associated with driving a car and should someone go through a red light and broadside me, they shouldn't have to pay for damages.

---

To quote Dale Doback, "that's so funny, the first time I heard that I fell off my dinosaur." But on a serious note, logic and common sense are probably foreign concepts to you if you were being serious.

Those of you familiar with Sherril Park No.2 know that on hole 13 -- if you can bomb -- you can get home in two with a little luck. And provided that you are willing to test your fates with the parking lot of the Richardson Women's Club.

Yep, bombed it over that parking lot many times over the years, although I try to restrict it to when the lot is empty (or mostly empty). What's in greater danger on Sherrill #2 are yourself and other golfers. That course elevates my blood pressure from an overall safety perspective. I love the #1 course, but rarely play #2.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 8/25/2010 12:29p).]