Does a golfer have to pay for broken window?
Mark W. Maple
I know there was a thread about this a little while back. I found
this article on this golf features page:
http://www.nando.net/newsroom/sports/oth/1995/oth/gol/feat/gol.html
NEWPORT, Ky. (Feb 6, 1997 - 20:24 EST) -- It's OK to hit the ball in the rough.
That's the law.
A judge, who just happens to be a golfer, denied a request for damages filed
by a man who built his house next to a golf course and had an errant shot
break his window.
"The court finds that a golfer has no duty to hit the ball straight,"
Campbell County District Judge Mickey Foellger ruled Tuesday.
Barry Jolly, who built his house next to a golf course, requested in
small-claims court to be reimbursed $867 by Don Spraker, who hit a shot
that broke his window last July.
Jolly knowingly built his house just off the sixth green at A.J. Jolly Golf
Course, named for a former Campbell County judge who is a relative of the
plaintiff. That means Jolly put himself in a position of known risk of
having his house hit by golf balls, the judge ruled.
"I'm really sorry that I did it," Spraker, of suburban Cincinnati, said
Wednesday. "I obviously didn't want to hit the ball into his house."
There is no negligence on the part of a golfer who hooks or slices a golf
ball out of bounds and onto private property if the golfer did not do it
intentionally, was not highly intoxicated and exercised reasonable club
selection, the judge ruled.
Foellger said he, too, takes a turn on the tees occasionally.
"And I don't hit it very straight, either," the judge said.
--
--
*** Note new address ***
Mark Maple \ \ __--.
(m...@pseserv9.fw.hac.com) \ \ __-- |
Senior Software Engineer \ \ __-- |
Hughes Defense Communications \ \ __-- Fairways |
\ \__-- and |
\ Greens |
\_____________________/
John A. King Jr,
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:24:21 EST, "Mark W. Maple"
<mwm...@PSESERV9.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
I dont under stand the golfer i too have a house on a fairway and
when a golfer broke my window he just gave me the name of his
insurance co. and it was put on his homeowner policy . What is the
big deal Be a man and pay for the broken window . That is like
saying a kid was playing in the street and i hit him with my auto
because he did not belong there. John
VHP
John A. King Jr, wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:24:21 EST, "Mark W. Maple"
> <mwm...@PSESERV9.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
>
> I dont under stand the golfer i too have a house on a fairway and
> when a golfer broke my window he just gave me the name of his
> insurance co. and it was put on his homeowner policy . What is the
> big deal Be a man and pay for the broken window . That is like
> saying a kid was playing in the street and i hit him with my auto
> because he did not belong there. John
>
It is widely known that the flight of a golf ball is extremely difficult
to control; there are more hooks, slices, and sh...s hit than straight
shots. Therefore, anybody who chooses to buy a home situated on a golf
course within striking distance of a legitimately played shot has the
luxury of knowing in advance that their property will probably suffer
damage from such errant shots, and should take responsibility for their
choice by insuring themselves.
Golfers, on the other hand, do not know in advance that a particular
shot is going to slice through the $1,000 picture window of that home
hugging the fairway. For many golfers, much of the time it is anybody's
guess which direction the ball will go. This is part of the game, and
should be recognized as such by those who want to live on a golf course!
Every home owner should have insurance, but not every golfer does (there
are a lot of youngsters who have auto insurance but no driving
coverage). Why should they or their parents have to buy insurance to pay
for someone else's decision to knowlingly place their home in danger?
As a matter of principle, golfers everywhere should refuse to pay for
accidental damage done to any home knowingly built within range of an
errant BUT LEGITIMATELY PLAYED shot.
Golf is nerve-wracking enough without the added concern of "is this shot
going to cost me $500?" on every tee.
tanstaafl...you want to live on a golf course, you pay the price!
David E. Wallin
John A. King Jr, wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:24:21 EST, "Mark W. Maple"
> <mwm...@PSESERV9.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
>
> I dont under stand the golfer i too have a house on a fairway and
> when a golfer broke my window he just gave me the name of his
> insurance co. and it was put on his homeowner policy . What is the
> big deal Be a man and pay for the broken window . That is like
> saying a kid was playing in the street and i hit him with my auto
> because he did not belong there. John
I have to disagree John. Just like I disagree with efforts of people who have
knowingly moved near an airport to get flight times restricted. You should be a man
and live up to choice you have made on locating your house.
David E. Wallin
I agree---well said.
VHP wrote:
>
> John A. King Jr, wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:24:21 EST, "Mark W. Maple"
> > <mwm...@PSESERV9.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
> >
> > I dont under stand the golfer i too have a house on a fairway and
> > when a golfer broke my window he just gave me the name of his
> > insurance co. and it was put on his homeowner policy . What is the
> > big deal Be a man and pay for the broken window . That is like
> > saying a kid was playing in the street and i hit him with my auto
> > because he did not belong there. John
> >
>
jjoh...@dwx.com
VHP wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:24:21 EST, "Mark W. Maple"
> > <mwm...@PSESERV9.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
> >
> > I dont under stand the golfer i too have a house on a fairway and
> > when a golfer broke my window he just gave me the name of his
> > insurance co. and it was put on his homeowner policy . What is the
> > big deal Be a man and pay for the broken window . That is like
> > saying a kid was playing in the street and i hit him with my auto
> > because he did not belong there. John
> >
>
golfer for breaking his window. The Judge (a golfer) told the
homeowner, you should have expected golf balls on a golf course and
ruled in favor of the golfer.
Your analogy about hitting a kid in your car on the street frightens me
a bit tho...
Joe
Cary
Golfers don't break windows....duffers do.
sfo...@interlog.com
In <32fbe046...@news.hargray.com>, maf...@hargray.com (John A. King Jr,) writes:
>On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:24:21 EST, "Mark W. Maple"
><mwm...@PSESERV9.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
>
> I dont under stand the golfer i too have a house on a fairway and
>when a golfer broke my window he just gave me the name of his
>insurance co. and it was put on his homeowner policy . What is the
>big deal Be a man and pay for the broken window . That is like
>saying a kid was playing in the street and i hit him with my auto
>because he did not belong there. John
I don't agree with this analogy. As a driver of a car on a street it is your
responsability to avoid kids. If the kid wonders onto the Indianapolis speedway
during the Indy 500 and gets killed by a driver, whose fault is that?
If the golf course was there first, then it is the home owners problem. If the
house was there first then perhaps the golf course is liable for the damage.
Just my two cents ...
Sean Forbes
sfo...@interlog.com
Paul Laughlin
Cary wrote:
>
> Golfers don't break windows....duffers do.
Seems to me that I remember Nicklaus' ball being on someone's deck a
year or two. That ball could easily have broken a window. Are you
saying that Nicklaus is not a golfer?
Tim Buck
sfo...@interlog.com wrote:
As a driver of a car on a street it is your
> responsability to avoid kids. If the kid wonders onto the Indianapolis speedway
> during the Indy 500 and gets killed by a driver, whose fault is that?
>
> If the golf course was there first, then it is the home owners problem. If the
> house was there first then perhaps the golf course is liable for the damage.
>
> Just my two cents ...
>
> Sean Forbes
> sfo...@interlog.com
Ever since I can remember the golfer is liable for damages caused by his
errant shot.
Makes sense doesn't it? If you hit a crummy shot you should have to pay
for it.
Been there and did it.
Timbuck
F. Roh
> > >As a driver of a car on a street it is your responsability to avoid
> > >kids.
> > If the kid wonders onto the Indianapolis speedway
> > during the Indy 500 and gets killed by a driver, whose fault is that?
> >
> > If the golf course was there first, then it is the home owners problem. If the
> > house was there first then perhaps the golf course is liable for the damage.
If you hit someone's golf cart and break the plastic windshield, you are
responsible. If your car runs into a house, you are responsible for the
damage, intentional or unintentional. If you run over a pedestrian, no one
would buy the defense that the pedestrian is responsible since they put
themselves in dange by walking adjacent to the street.
If a golfer is not good enough keep the ball in play and/or is worried
about hitting balls into properties adjacent to the course, he/she should
go play somewhere else. Or at least reduce the chance of hitting into
private property by hitting an iron!! Rather, I should say lose the ego
and go with an iron.
It is funny, golf is a game of honesty and levying penalty on own self for
bad shots. When some lousy golfer broke a window on my house, he denied
it along with the three others in his foursome; there was no one in front
of them and the twosome behind them saw the guy hit the errant ball.
Now, denying responsibility for breaking windows is one thing, but to flat
out lie is another; obviously they knew my hands are tied. Not only were
they sorry golfers, but they are sorry human beings. I would be most
surprised if this sorry golfer pernalized himself a stroke for OB.
Franklin
Greg Laskowski
Legally, courts have ruled, recently in CA, and was carried as a news
item in GOLF or GOLF DIGEST, that the golfer is not responsible for
damage caused by the ball. Does not make any difference if the course
was there first or not. So if you're looking for the home, backed up to
the course, choose the site carefully.
Morally, some folks take responsibility for their actions and would file
with their insurance companies or pay out of pocket.
Swing slow, play hard.
Greg
Bruce Wedding
"F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
I haven't followed this complete thread, but I do have some insite to
offer. In California only, the golfer is not responsible unless the
action was deliberate. There is court precedence for this. The
argument is that even a professional strikes an errant ball
occasionally. If you own a home on a golf course, or even drive by
one, you are accepting the risk that an errant ball may strike your
house or car.
Bruce
Bruce Wedding
bru...@phoenix.net (Bruce Wedding) wrote:
>"F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I haven't followed this complete thread, but I do have some insite to
Make that insight. <sheesh>
>offer. In California only, the golfer is not responsible unless the
Let me clarify this: California is the only one I know about for
certain. I don't know how other states treat it, but I think this is
reasonable. Of course, it wasn't my window.
Bruce
David E. Wallin
Greg Laskowski wrote:
>
> Legally, courts have ruled, recently in CA, and was carried as a news
> item in GOLF or GOLF DIGEST, that the golfer is not responsible for
> damage caused by the ball. Does not make any difference if the course
> was there first or not. So if you're looking for the home, backed up to
> the course, choose the site carefully.
>
> Morally, some folks take responsibility for their actions and would file
> with their insurance companies or pay out of pocket.
The courts tell me that it wasn't my fault, but the fault of the homeowner for
having a house there. So, I feel no obligation to pay. In a similar vane, I
don't feel obliged to pay for someones damaged car when they run a stop sign even
if I realize that if I could have hit the brake a little faster the accident would
not have happened.
Phillip Zadarnowski
"F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>If you hit someone's golf cart and break the plastic windshield, you are
>responsible. If your car runs into a house, you are responsible for the
>damage, intentional or unintentional.
[etc]
Insurance. Liability. For $200, I can waste a whole
parking-lot of expensive cars.
This damage business is never clean-cut clear, but I for one
fully expect to just play a game of golf and not become
liable for thousands of dollars in damages because some
developer has built houses around the course or built a
course around some houses.
Most people get insurance on their property, and insurance
is *not* exclusively directed at recovery from the
injuring party. The insurance company takes a risk, and
they'd have to be pretty silly not to factor in
accidental damage near a golf course.
Golf-courses will have their own insurances that may or may
not cover players damaging surrounds, each other and the
premises.
S.
Chris Alvord
Tim Buck wrote:
>
> Ever since I can remember the golfer is liable for damages caused by his
> errant shot.
> Makes sense doesn't it? If you hit a crummy shot you should have to pay
> for it.
>
> Been there and did it.
> Timbuck
Several years ago, I watched an episode of People's Court with Judge
Whapner. The case was by guy who had been sitting in his car near a
golf course reading a book. An errant golf ball came through the car
window and injured him in the face. He was suing the golfer for
damages.
Judge Whapner ruled in favor of the golfer - he said that the golfer did
nothing wrong - he just hit a bad shot. He stated that the deciding
factor is "negligence" and the golfer did not do anything negligent.
He went on to say that the guy who got hit might have a case against the
golf course but not against the golfer.
Remember, as the show's disclaimer says, these judgments are based upon
California State law, other states may be different.
F. Roh
>
> I haven't followed this complete thread, but I do have some insite to
> action was deliberate. There is court precedence for this. The
> argument is that even a professional strikes an errant ball
> occasionally. If you own a home on a golf course, or even drive by
> one, you are accepting the risk that an errant ball may strike your
> house or car.
>
> Bruce
>
You better remind me to park my car outside the club gates and walk to the
clubhouse.
Bob Anderson
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:41:59 GMT, bru...@phoenix.net (Bruce Wedding)
wrote:
>"F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>I haven't followed this complete thread, but I do have some insite to
>offer. In California only, the golfer is not responsible unless the
>action was deliberate. There is court precedence for this. The
>argument is that even a professional strikes an errant ball
>occasionally. If you own a home on a golf course, or even drive by
>one, you are accepting the risk that an errant ball may strike your
>house or car.
>
>Bruce
Hmmm...I'm trying to figure out why (according to a California court)
golfers are immune from liability from accidents they cause when there
is no intent to harm. If I drive by a construction site and a crane
operator makes a mistake and drops an i-beam on my car certainly he
(or his company) is liable. And it would be safe to assume that the
crane operator is a 'professional'.
What if the golfer shanks it across the street and cracks some kid's
skull open? Is he still immune? If the facts are correct it seems to
me that the judge that ruled in this case was out to lunch.
Bob A.
Andrew
In article <5dsv4d$2...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, bru...@phoenix.net says...
>
>"F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>I haven't followed this complete thread, but I do have some insite to
>offer. In California only, the golfer is not responsible unless the
>action was deliberate. There is court precedence for this. The
>argument is that even a professional strikes an errant ball
>occasionally. If you own a home on a golf course, or even drive by
>one, you are accepting the risk that an errant ball may strike your
>house or car.
>
>Bruce
>
>
If a golfer breaks the window on my car while I'm driving. You will be
d*mned sure I will make him/her pay for it. If he/she doesn't, I will
sue him/her and the golf course.
There are too many golf courses in this area that are too close to the
road. To not go by the golf courses would add at least 20 miles and 30
minutes to a trip.
The problem these days is nobody takes responsibility for their actions
anymore.
Own up to your mistakes.
Andrew
disclaimer:
These views are mine and not my employers
Michael Morse
>If a golfer breaks the window on my car while I'm driving. You will be
>d*mned sure I will make him/her pay for it. If he/she doesn't, I will
>sue him/her and the golf course.
>
>The problem these days is nobody takes responsibility for their actions
>anymore.
>
>Own up to your mistakes.
I can see how suing the golf course might have some beneficial effect
on society, in that if they lost the suit, they might be influenced to
change the course or put up fences in such a way to protect cars. I
don't see how suing the golfer helps things. Your car insurance will
pay for the window, probably even send somebody out to your home or
office to fix it. How does inflicting financial or emotional pain on
somebody who had no intention of hurting you help society's problems?
If suing people, and making "damned sure" they pay for accidents is
the solution, I think maybe I'd rather stay with the problem.
--Mike
Vince
Michael Morse <mo...@his.com> wrote in article
<330891fb...@news.his.com>...
>
> >If a golfer breaks the window on my car while I'm driving. You will be
> >d*mned sure I will make him/her pay for it. If he/she doesn't, I will
> >sue him/her and the golf course.
> >
> >The problem these days is nobody takes responsibility for their actions
> >anymore.
> >
> >Own up to your mistakes.
>
> > How does inflicting financial or emotional pain on
> somebody who had no intention of hurting you help society's problems?
> If suing people, and making "damned sure" they pay for accidents is
> the solution, I think maybe I'd rather stay with the problem.
>
> --Mike
>
I don't know exactly how the law would see it, but it seems to me that if
that window was installed in a house that was on the course it should be
the owner's problem. A person would have to have a lot of nerve to move
onto a golf course and then complain about any of the well known hazzards
of living near a course. The same would go for a car parked at the course.
Now if the course were built after the owner had settled there, I would
think the club should cover that. As for balls on the road, if there is an
area of the course where this would be a probable hazzard, the club should
use some of the money they rake in from us golfers and erect a protective
fence and buy insurance covering such things. Of course no matter who's
financially responsible, the golfer should personally apologize.
But thats just my opinion...
Vince
Trevor Critch
I saw on television this last weekend either during the open or on a golf
telecast such as Acure World of Golf or the 1/2 hour show on CNN the
topic was who is responsible for broken windows by golfers. They said
that legally the club of golfer is not responsible. If a person lives
adjacent to a golf course it is assumed that he or she accepts the
likelihood of having broken windows.
Personally, if I had my window broken and the guy refused to pay
for it he would loose the windshield in his car.
Regards
Trevor Critch
Phillip Zadarnowski
Chris Alvord <grail...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Judge Whapner ruled in favor of the golfer - he said that the golfer did
>nothing wrong - he just hit a bad shot. He stated that the deciding
>factor is "negligence" and the golfer did not do anything negligent.
Called a local course about the Driving Range - "No Woods," he said.
"Some idiot built a house at the end of the driving range 200 metres
away and we have to put up a barrier... Irons only."
I get the feeling that my protestations about hitting only 150
with a wood will fall on deaf ears...
S
Phillip Zadarnowski
Trevor Critch <cri...@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA> wrote:
>I saw on television this last weekend either during the open or on a golf
>telecast such as Acure World of Golf or the 1/2 hour show on CNN the
>topic was who is responsible for broken windows by golfers. They said
>that legally the club of golfer is not responsible. If a person lives
>adjacent to a golf course it is assumed that he or she accepts the
>likelihood of having broken windows.
> Personally, if I had my window broken and the guy refused to pay
>for it he would loose the windshield in his car.
Beware retribution, for it ends only when the one who can tolerate
total loss of all he owns makes the third-last strike, ie, trade
you a $500 windshield on mine for a $2000 paint job on yours!
Accidental breakage what insurance is about.
S.
Joel Monleon
Phillip Zadarnowski <fan...@iinet.com.au> wrote in article
<330c64a...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
> Called a local course about the Driving Range - "No Woods," he said.
> "Some idiot built a house at the end of the driving range 200 metres
> away and we have to put up a barrier... Irons only."
>
But right of easement it's the owners fault for building a house at the end
of a driving range.
It's like building a house at the end of an airport runway. The owner
knows he can't quite down the planes, because the airport was there first.
The driving could always put shorter tees and install a taller fence.
I don't know about Australian Laws, but that's how it's done here in the
U.S.
CFiore309
In New York State, the Court of Appeals (State's highest court) ruled that
a golfer is not responsible for damage caused by an unintentionally mishit
ball. The case is Roberta Rinaldo v. Arthur Mcgovern, November 21, 1991.
The court also held that the golf course is not responsible. In this
particular case, two golfers sliced their tee shots off the course onto an
adjacent roadway. One of these shots broke the windshield of a passing
car. In the opinion, the court stated that in order to hold a golfer
liable for an errant shot, it must be "affirmatively show(n) that the
golfer failed to excercise due care by adducing proof, for example, that
the golfer aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of
harm".
Chris Fiore
Kenneth Mcgrath
It is my understanding that the golfer is generally not responsible for
paying for the repair. However common decency demands that the offending
golfer at least offer to pay.
I agree with the assertion that those who live on or near a golf course
should expect occaisonal damage. One doesn't move next to the ocean and
complain about flooding.
David G. Laville
Here is an article from the February 15, 1997 issue of Golfweek. It
appeared in the News Brief Column;
Golfer not liable for damaging shot
NEWPORT, Ky.
A man who built his house next to a golf course cannot collect money from a
player who struck an errant shot that broke the homeowner's window, a judge
said.
The judge, a golfer, showed no sympathy for Barry Jolly's request in
Campbell County's small-claims court to be reimbursed $867 by the man who
hit the shot.
"The court finds that a golfer has no duty to hit the ball straight,"
county judge Mickey Foellger ruled Feb. 4.
Jolly knowingly built his house on the edge of golf course. That means
Jolly put himself in a position of known risk of having his house hit by
balls, the judge ruled.
Don Spraker sent the ball smashing through the window during a round on the
northern Kentucky golf course in July.
"I'm really sorry that I did it," Spraker, of suburban Cincinnati, said.
"I obviously didn't want to hit the ball into his house".
Jolly's house is just of the sixth green at A.J. Jolly Golf Course. The
course is named for a former Campbell County judge-executive, a relative of
Barry Jolly.
David Carrell
Do not assume that the owners of houses at the end of runways cannot
'quiet' the planes. I used to fly out of a small PA airport frequently
on business trips. One time I noticed we used a much steeper approach
than normal. This continued for several times then I asked the pilots
one time what had changed. Seems that when some $250M dollar houses
where built off the runway, the residents complained and eventually
forced (legally) the planes to change the approach path to reduce the
noise, even though the new approach had a greater risk to the
passengers. (Note the airport had been there for 40 to 50 years.
The owner of the house will share some of the liability but the
driving range owner and golfer are responsible for limiting the risk.
Only a court (jury?) can decide the ultimate responsibilities.
Regards,
DAC
F. Roh
I better tell my friends who live in NY state to never go jogging
around their neighborhood golf course! Why bother with yelling fore when
you don't have to. Out of courtesy? Pshaw~! And why do golf courses
bother with the the sign that says "golfers are responsible for their
actions and any damage they cause to other golfers or property"? Hell, a
hacker can break all the clubhouse windows and he just has to say "I
didn't mean it".
Another point I want to address is what will the courts say if a
pedestrian is hit by a car in NY? Will the pedestrian has to prove that
the driver intentionally hit him? Car insurance companies would love
that.
Frank
F. Roh
I don't think we can compare acts of God or nature against actions of a
person. You can't say Mother Nature is not a decent person because she
didn't offer to pay for your house on the waterfront: a person who plays a
sport that is based on honesty and sportsmanship, however, is different.
Frank
Michael Morse
> And why do golf courses
>bother with the the sign that says "golfers are responsible for their
>actions and any damage they cause to other golfers or property"?
I am curious how many do post such signs. In my short golfing
experience (less than a year) I've only seen one such sign. I don't
know if it was a coincidence that it was at a course with more, and
closer, houses, bicycles, and pedestrians than you can probably
imagine. Essentially the course threaded its way over streets and
through back yards of a well established suburban community.
>Another point I want to address is what will the courts say if a
>pedestrian is hit by a car in NY? Will the pedestrian has to prove that
>the driver intentionally hit him? Car insurance companies would love
>that.
You (and others on this thread) seem to assume that every time a car
hits a pedestrian, it's the driver's fault. That's just not the case
in any state. The pedestrian does not have to prove the driver
*intentionally* hit him, but must prove the driver *negligently* hit
him. For example, if a toddler crawled behind a car in a parking lot,
or if someone darted out in heavy traffic, a court might very well
find the driver faultless.
Also, these issues are more complex than they seem because of the cost
of lawyers. An insurance company may pay a claim even though it has
no merit because it will cost them less than fighting it. So just
because you hear somebody collected for some accident does not mean
the other person was legally at fault.
--Mike
F. Roh
>
> You (and others on this thread) seem to assume that every time a car
> hits a pedestrian, it's the driver's fault. That's just not the case
> in any state. The pedestrian does not have to prove the driver
> *intentionally* hit him, but must prove the driver *negligently* hit
> him. For example, if a toddler crawled behind a car in a parking lot,
> or if someone darted out in heavy traffic, a court might very well
> find the driver faultless.
The pedestrian has to prove the driver's negligence? That's like trying
to prove that the golfer intentionally aimed at the house. Why should we
hold people responsible for their actions?
What you are saying is that if I hit a child in a middle of the road, I
will not be responsible. That's great because I wouldn't need insurance
anymore; I don't go around intentionally trying to hit people with my
automobile and by a freak accident I do, I will say what everyone else
says, "I didn't see the kid."
And I tell you what, I would be very weary when playing golf because
if you, standing on a tee tox, got hit by an errant golf ball , the
golfer who hit the errant shot is not responsible at all for his actions.
What if you lose sight in one of your eyes because of the errant ball?
" You knew and took the risk when you went out on the golf course that
you might get hit by a golf ball", that's what the courts will say to you.
What if by chance you die from an errant ball? I can guess what the NY
judges will say, "Tough"
Frank
Terry M. Lowe
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97022...@saul6.u.washington.edu>, "F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> writes:
|> >
|> > You (and others on this thread) seem to assume that every time a car
|> > hits a pedestrian, it's the driver's fault. That's just not the case
|> > in any state. The pedestrian does not have to prove the driver
|> > *intentionally* hit him, but must prove the driver *negligently* hit
|> > him. For example, if a toddler crawled behind a car in a parking lot,
|> > or if someone darted out in heavy traffic, a court might very well
|> > find the driver faultless.
|>
|> The pedestrian has to prove the driver's negligence? That's like trying
|> to prove that the golfer intentionally aimed at the house. Why should we
|> hold people responsible for their actions?
People are held accountable for their actions (at least most of the
time). It is simply a question of who is responsible in the different
cases. Just because you are driving your car does not mean you are
responsible for every accident you might get into.
|> What you are saying is that if I hit a child in a middle of the road, I
|> will not be responsible. That's great because I wouldn't need insurance
|> anymore; I don't go around intentionally trying to hit people with my
|> automobile and by a freak accident I do, I will say what everyone else
|> says, "I didn't see the kid."
No, that's not what he said - it depends on the circumstances. If a
kid is standing in the middle of the road, and you run him/her down
without stopping or trying to avoid hitting them, you will be at fault
because it is your responsibility to keep your eyes on the road (which
you couldn't have been doing if the kid had been standing there for any
length of time). However, if the kid runs out from between two cars
right in front of you and you have no chance to stop, you are not
responsible. As tragic as the end results may be, it was not your
fault.
|> And I tell you what, I would be very weary when playing golf because
|> if you, standing on a tee tox, got hit by an errant golf ball , the
|> golfer who hit the errant shot is not responsible at all for his actions.
Not quite...if the golfer does not yell out some kind of warning, or
at least attempt to yell out some kind of warning, they could be held
responsible - not providing a warning could show negligence. That
doesn't mean you could prove it satisfactorily in a court of law, but
you might have a case.
|> What if you lose sight in one of your eyes because of the errant ball?
|> " You knew and took the risk when you went out on the golf course that
|> you might get hit by a golf ball", that's what the courts will say to you.
|>
|> What if by chance you die from an errant ball? I can guess what the NY
|> judges will say, "Tough"
The extent of the injuries does not indicate whether someone is at
fault. If someone hits you with an errant tee shot, their guilt or
innocence does not hinge on whether or not you are dead of you have
a welt on your leg. It would hinge on whether or not they were
negligent. If they are negligent, their punishment would depend
on the extent of your injuries.
And yes, you do assume some risk for putting yourself in harm's way.
If you attend a PGA event, or attend a minor/major league baseball
game, check out the back of the ticket. Everybody and their uncle
is protected from liability except you. By using the ticket to gain
entrance, you accept the risk of getting hit by a stray ball and
agree to absolve everyone from any liability. If you can't accept
this, you don't buy the ticket/don't go.
Likewise, if you build or move into a house along a golf course,
you are knowlingly putting yourself in harm's way. Errant shots
happen and they are beyond the control of the golfer - if the
golfer was in control, the shot would not have been errant. If
you cannot accept the risk, then you don't build/live there, or
you take precautions against damage (i.e. netting, landscaping
with lots of tall and or thick trees, special insurance, etc.).
If a golf course appeared all of a sudden next door to your house
then you MIGHT have a beef (with the golf course though, not the
individual golfer). I say MIGHT because if the land next to your
house had been zoned/approved for a golf course before you built
or moved into your house, the liability is back on you - you should
have checked.
The bottom line is that people should be held accountable for their
actions, but responsibility goes both ways. If someone builds a
house next to a golf course, then they accept the risk of having a
stray shot hit them or their house. If you are hitting balls in
your backyard and put one through the neighbor's window, then you
are responsible.
My 2 cents worth...
Terry (whose opinions are always my own)
Michael Morse
"F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>> You (and others on this thread) seem to assume that every time a car
>> hits a pedestrian, it's the driver's fault. That's just not the case
>> in any state. The pedestrian does not have to prove the driver
>> *intentionally* hit him, but must prove the driver *negligently* hit
>> him. For example, if a toddler crawled behind a car in a parking lot,
>> or if someone darted out in heavy traffic, a court might very well
>> find the driver faultless.
>
>The pedestrian has to prove the driver's negligence? That's like trying
>to prove that the golfer intentionally aimed at the house. Why should we
>hold people responsible for their actions?
>
>What you are saying is that if I hit a child in a middle of the road, I
>will not be responsible.
No I did not say that. I said you *might* not be responsible in the
legal system. If it was bright sunlight, and the pedestrian was in a
crosswalk, they're going to throw the book at you in every state. You
can't say, "I didn't mean to" because that's no excuse. You'll
probably face criminal as well as civil penalties. A driver is
expected to take reasonable care to watch the road and stop for
pedestrians.
Now suppose that it was pitch black, the pedestrian was wearing black,
and darted out around a curve. In other words, *no* driver, no matter
how careful could have avoided the pedestrian. Most likely you'll not
be found responsible in our court system.
What does this have to do with golf? Not being a lawyer, I'm not
sure, but I think the parallels are there. If the golfer acts in a
reasonable way, but still breaks the window, he/she won't be held
responsible in our judicial system.
--Mike
Phillip Zadarnowski
"F. Roh" <fr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>And I tell you what, I would be very weary when playing golf because
>if you, standing on a tee tox, got hit by an errant golf ball , the
>golfer who hit the errant shot is not responsible at all for his actions.
>What if you lose sight in one of your eyes because of the errant ball?
>" You knew and took the risk when you went out on the golf course that
>you might get hit by a golf ball", that's what the courts will say to you.
>
>What if by chance you die from an errant ball? I can guess what the NY
>judges will say, "Tough"
Gawd. Whatever the outcome of an errant ball, and you may well be
happy to proffer "damages," you might find yourself paying $1m for
a minor damage to a person in a civil court. Maybe a small bruise
needing a doctor's visit and a little medication that actually cost
a few hundred bucks suddenly becomes an OJ-like civil case where
you might just be forced to settle for $50,000 in lieu of that $1m.
If it comes to property, it's most likely the person has insurance.
Personal damage? Time *you* got insurance, because I sure as hell
am going to find out about sporting liability insurance. I want
to limit my exposure to high damages claims.
What I don't understand, is how people seem to think that hitting
a golf ball is any different from driving a car, where property
damage is covered and (in Australia, anyway) the yearly licence
fee covers you for personal damage.
Sounds like sporting liability insurance shouldn't be too expensive,
and well worth the bucks.
And what about the case where a visitor to a resident-near-course
get clobbered by a ball? Who's he gonna sue? :-)
Steve
Chris McNaught
In Golf Weekly there was an article about a Kentucky judge who ruled
that the golfer was "not" responsible for the broken window. As a
golfer who has sliced more than one ball, that's the court I want to go
to. We may have a hundred opinions on this issue. I'm sure the courts
do also.
--
************************************************************
** Chris McNaught Centennial Golf Course **
** mcna...@micron.net P.O. Box 52 **
** Nampa, Idaho 83651 **
** cnte...@micron.net **
** **
** http://www.netnow.micron.net/~mcnaught **
** **
** GOLF PUTS A MAN'S CHARACTER ON THE ANVIL AND HIS **
** RICHEST QUALITIES PATIENCE, POISE, RESTRAINT **
** TO THE FLAME. **
************************************************************
Russell Patterson
fan...@iinet.com.au (Phillip Zadarnowski) wrote:
>Sounds like sporting liability insurance shouldn't be too expensive,
>and well worth the bucks.
>Steve
Maybe the fact that you are insured will cause the person to seek a
lawyer, whereas, if your pockets are not "deep", he wouldn't bother.
Russ