A family wins a $5M verdict from club after their property is hit by 600 Balls

[The Xl]

Just because you build a golf course somewhere doesn't mean a neighboring home owner isn't entitled to keep other peoples $#@! off of their property. That sounds more like the problem of the golf establishment and not the homeowner. Bet you don't see any more golf balls on other peoples private property now.

[Dr. Who]

That's a stupid judgement. If they moved and then someone built a golf course it would be different, but since they knew they were building on a course...

That doesn't excuse the golf course for a bad design that allows someone's home to be a firing range for high projectile golf balls. The homeowner couldn't complain about the sounds of people hitting golf balls because that would be implicit if you bought a house next to a golf course, but the property damage is not going to fall under nuisance law. It's no different than buying a house next to a grade school. You can't sue over the noise but you can sue if kids at the school are breaking your windows or throwing trash in your yard and the school doesn't address the problem.

[Crepitus]

That doesn't excuse the golf course for a bad design that allows someone's home to be a firing range for high projectile golf balls. The homeowner couldn't complain about the sounds of people hitting golf balls because that would be implicit if you bought a house next to a golf course, but the property damage is not going to fall under nuisance law. It's no different than buying a house next to a grade school. You can't sue over the noise but you can sue if kids at the school are breaking your windows or throwing trash in your yard and the school doesn't address the problem.

They knew the course was there. They should have done due diligence. They need to take responsibility for their choices.

[The Xl]

They knew the course was there. They should have done due diligence. They need to take responsibility for their choices.

Just because a golf course is there doesn't change the fact that its their private property.

[Crepitus]

Just because a golf course is there doesn't change the fact that its their private property.

they need to Grow up and be personally responsible for their choices. People make bad decisions sometimes. Own it and move on, don't sue someone else for your mistakes.

[Dr. Who]

They knew the course was there. They should have done due diligence. They need to take responsibility for their choices.

I don't think this is a case of lack of due diligence, since 600 golf balls coming into your property and smashing through your windows in 5 years isn't commonplace for properties abutting golf courses. If it were, they wouldn't be able to sell any houses next to golf courses. The reason for the issue at the plaintiff's home was the dogleg in the course and the tendency of golfers to try to circumvent the dogleg by taking a shortcut in attempting to fire their golf ball over a stand of trees. Instead of clearing the trees, the balls would often end up in the plaintiff's property. The solution was to move the 15th hole back, so the golfers were no longer tempted to try to take a shortcut. It was in effect a defect in the course's design.

[Cletus]

If I was the Judge, I would have asked the homeowners if they were aware the were buying a house on a golf course. If they said "Yes", my response would be "Get your stupid asses out of my courtroom before I throw you in jail just for being a couple of the dumbest people on the planet.

That is like these idiots who buy a house next to a rifle range or an airport and then whine about the noise.

[Dr. Who]

If I was the Judge, I would have asked the homeowners if they were aware the were buying a house on a golf course. If they said "Yes", my response would be "Get your stupid asses out of my courtroom before I throw you in jail just for being a couple of the dumbest people on the planet.

That is like these idiots who buy a house next to a rifle range or an airport and then whine about the noise.

Your analogy is incorrect, because noise coming from a rifle range or an airport is a nuisance which they could not claim was unpredictable. What happened to these homeowners would be more analogous to moving next to a firing range and having stray rounds repeatedly careening into their back yard and through their windows, not only causing property damage, but endangering its occupants.

[Peter1469]

I never understood why anyone would want a property abutting a golf course for that very reason. Nevertheless, I do think that the golf course should be held liable for the activities occurring on their property that damages the property of others or interferes in the use and enjoyment of same. A golf ball with sufficient velocity hitting someone in the temple could be lethal. I presume that the bulk of the settlement is for the years of aggravation that they have endured. The golf club has now redesigned the 15th hole to discourage golfers from attempting to clear a tree line, the failure of which resulted in the rain of golf balls on the plaintiffs' property. It's a pity they didn't have the decency to do so when the plaintiffs first made them aware of the problem.

Audubon Golf Course in New Orleans's Garden District is an old 9 hole course with the holes packs together with many side-by-side fairways. People have been hit in the head and seriously injured. I wouldn't be surprised if some died. Since it is New Orleans alcohol flows free there too, which adds to the chaos.

[Peter1469]

I knew several kids who grew up in houses bordering golf courses. None of their families got there by accident. Their fathers were members of the course/club.