Courts traditionally construed the zone of danger narrowly; defining it by the intended flight of the golf ball. Answered on 5/22/07, 12:32 am. And its true he has never had a broken window. Few cases brought by golfers premised on the theory of golfer negligence discuss the applicability of a homeowners liability insurance policy as a source of recovery for the injured golfer. I took a hit on a new Hummer 2 years ago at the same location, causing a minor dent. Stray golf balls causes property damage in River Oaks communities; golf In Thurston Metals & Supply Co. v. Taylor, the court upheld the jurys conclusion that a golfer was negligent when he took a practice swing at a tee after hitting two balls into the woods. Additionally, course managers may not have a duty to properly instruct a new caddy regarding safety on the golf course where the caddy has general knowledge of the course. If the golfer does something really stupid, and he is seen by the homeowner or someone else, perhaps the golfer ends up being sued in tort for the damages; more likely the homeowner tries to recover from the course. And, the defendant sees the plaintiff before striking the ball. The same is true for hooking, slicing, pushing, or pulling a golf shot. The majority of the public would say no. Attorney Dalton Floyd said in these incidents, the golf course isn't . The court in Brady v. Kane held that a golfer, who was a member of a golf foursome, was negligent when he took a practice swing while standing behind a fellow golfer in his foursome. And, the golfer knows or should know of their unawareness. The University of Toledo Law Review Volume 24; Summer 1993; Number 4, Injury On the Golf Course: Regardless of Your Handicap, Escaping Liability Is Par for the Course, Golf is one of the more popular pastimes in this country. The popularity of the sport has increased tremendously in recent years and now thousands of people are having golf lessons in los angeles as well as other cities. This is because the golfers shot was deemed negligent. 5. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. "It's basically the same as if you hit another car with yours and no one sees you. Allow them to take care of it, or pursue the bad golfer down if they choose. In some states, the person who hit the ball is responsible for any damage it creates, and even in states without the requirement, some will pay your deductible out of a moral obligation. That is if those persons are unaware the golfer intends to hit his ball. If you own property in a golf community, call us at 561.838.9595 or email us info@jamesnbrownpa.com. Regardless of the duty to warn prior to striking the ball, a duty to warn others in the vicinity exists after striking the ball if it becomes apparent that the shot is errant. If such were the case, every player would be perfect and the whole pleasure of the sport would be lost. But, who had been a member of the course in question for twenty years. Manufacturers, servicers, or sellers of golf carts may be liable under warranty theories, negligence theories and strict liability theories. In these cases, neither the defendants lack of negligence nor the plaintiffs contributory negligence is ordinarily relevant. However, in the recent decision of Bartlett v. Chebuhar, the court broadened the zone of danger, not limiting the zone to the intended flight of the ball. The court grounded its holding on negligence and nuisance theories. County Approves Tax Rates for Marijuana Businesses in Unincorporated Areas. The law varies from state to state and from case to case. The club struck the fellow golfer in the head while both golfers were waiting for another member of their foursome to tee off. The DeSarnos conceded that the golf balls were all errant and that no one was intentionally hitting golf balls onto their property. In Cavin v. Kasser, the plaintiff was waiting to tee off on the number two hole of Creve Coeur Golf Club. A golfer injured in a golf cart accident may look to the defendant cart drivers automobile liability policy and homeowners insurance policy as a method of recovering damages for an injury. David G. Muller: Can a golfer be held liable for errant golf ball damage? Sans v. Ramsey Golf and Country Club, 29 N.J. 438, 149 A.2d 599 (1959) Reader Response: What about the voluntary property damage coverage of $1,000? The duty to defend is probably the most important part of the policy for the defendant, because few cases are resolved on the pleadings despite the difficulty in obtaining recovery for plaintiffs. The next section of this article will analyze case law about these unique concerns. Similarly, it is often very difficult for a caddy to recover from a course owner for injuries received on the golf course. The defendant golfer yelled fore after his shot hooked left, but the plaintiff could not avoid being hit. The house owner eats the expense only if you get away. For example, the owner would probably have a duty to put up a screen along the highway or a series of trees to protect the traveling public. Also, various country clubs have various agreements between the developer, the course, the HOA, the playing public (or private members) and the homeowner that attempt to define the liabilities of each and theres probably a uniquely different agreement for each and every country club! The score card showed the yardage as 315 yards from tee to green. An errant golf shot is not negligence! Nevertheless, in Gant v. Hanks the minor caddy was permitted to recover from the course owner. In reference to a golf shot, a golfers primary duty is to impart sufficient warning. This is because the warning would be superfluous. No aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. Multiple large (unmissable) signs on these holes state something like this: WARNING: According to Georgia law (Section 119.C, clause 8), golf course owners and\or operators cannot be held liable for any damages resulting from errant golf balls striking private property. The owner or operator of a private golf course may be held liable for injuries to a person struck by a golf ball. Therefore, the liability issue with respect to golf course owners is not whether it was foreseeable to the owner that golfers would hit erratic shots. It would have been interesting to see how the police would have sorted it out since he was exposing himself in a public and there were women in my group. Please golf with care in these areas.. Thus, under Bartlett, poor golfers will often have a greater duty to warn. Meanwhile, the defendant, Kasser, was preparing to hit from the number three tee. In contrast to public nuisances, private nuisances affect a determinative number of people in the enjoyment of some private right not common to the public. They do this by requiring the lessor of a motor vehicle to provide primary insurance coverage in the event of an accident. Additionally, most courts hold that a country club renting a golf cart to a golf course patron may not avoid liability for its negligence by means of an exculpatory clause in the rental agreement; since these clauses are considered void against public policy. Moreover, the course owner is also subject to nuisance theories of liability. After discussing court holdings for the most frequent accidents encountered on or near a golf course, this article will analyze some unusual fact situations. In Sands v. Ramsey Golf and Country Club, the court granted injunctive relief to a homeowner on a golf course; barring the club from further use of a walking path to the third tee that underwent construction after the plaintiffs bought their home. The injured plaintiff brought suit against the golf course owner for negligent failure to correct the yardage indicated on the score card and against the player for negligent failure to warn.