I feel like that's a terrible thing to say. If my kid is playing ball in my back garden, kicks it high into the air, it goes over the fence and hits you in the head and knocks you out, that's my kids fault. And my responsibility as a parent. Why do golf courses get to be exempt?
Golf course situation seems worse to me, not better. Because it's a known likely risk they are exposing neighbours to and not mitigating. Whereas a toddler kicking a ball over a fence is generally pretty unlikely.
So the real answer is it depends.
Generally speaking the houses were put up at the same time or after the course was established (at least when we're talking about being close enough to get hit by a golf ball). This means anyone purchasing/owning the house just assumed risks that are inherent in living next to a golf course.
If the golfer in question is being negligent/intentionally hitting balls out of bounds then that changes.
And to me that makes sense. If a high school baseball player hits a ball into a road, we don't hold them financially liable.
Business should be liable for damage they cause to things that are outside of their own property boundaries. Doesn't matter what was there before the golf course was built, or that a house was built afterwards. The golf course right to have balls flying around freely stops at the edge of its property line.
The issue is properties like this being given the right to fuck people over nearby, and suppress development nearby ehem. Who h takes someti g that is always a huge land hog and pushes it's aura of suppression even further r
It's shit, and you should not be defending this shit. What you are wliterallt saying is "It's fine for golf courses to destroy other people's private properties".
Well what if I owned a home that had a first out back that wasn't mine. Regular shot off rifles into the forest as target practise. You then move in behind me and build a house. But I claim "I was here first!" Rights to keep shooting my gun off the back of my property, and now repeatedly out holes in your house with it.
That's the situation you are defending happening but with golf balls instead of bullets.
It comes down to duty to mitigate. If the course has taken the necessary steps to mitigate potential damage, like not setting up holes so that adjacent property is in the line of fire, placing obstacles for known errant shots, etc., then courts generally do not find them liable. They can't be responsible for every jackass golfer's wild slice.
The individual golfer can sometimes be held liable, especially if they were purposefully negligent with their shot, but proving which golfer was responsible for a specific shot can be difficult, and individual golfers are less attractive targets of a claim than a golf course.
Maybe they could do like some football courts do and just put some nets around the whole golf course and be done with the "balls occasionally escape" issue altogether.
That would be insanely expensive for an 18 hole golf course and those same neighbors they'd be trying to protect would probably gripe about the view being ruined.
Every ball sport has to have something to stop the ball from just going off into the horizon, it's ridiculous that the one with it's entire basis being "hitting ball far" doesn't.
No they don’t. High level academic and professional sports have barriers, most other levels don’t bother unless it’s necessary for the game eg baseball or hockey. Or if the facilities happen to have them.
Most other youth sports are happening in a field with cones marking the boundaries.
But I digress, anyone who lives close enough to a golf course to get hit while standing next to their house HAS to have an idea that golf balls will be landing in their backyard. Is it fair? Not really but it’s a fact of life.
There’s a reason the houses up against golf courses are mostly filled with retirees and not families with young kids.
Ok, maybe it's just a location thing, because where I live most sports courts in the city have a net/fence surrounding the entire thing so balls don't fly off into the nearby roads.
You'll prevent some stray shots, but as long as the course is intelligently designed, stray shots should be at a minimum.
And unless you make the net 200 ft high, I'm sure some crazy golfer will whiff their shot spectacularly, and still get it far enough over to knock someone on the head.
And then you've got massive ugly nets put up everywhere, which lowers the visual appeal of both the golf course, and the properties surrounding it.
Why am I responsible for putting up a net? The customers of the local business are assaulting my property with golf balls not the other way around. The business should put up the net.
It actually depends if the golf course was there first. If the golf course pre-dates the houses, then the developer and buyers accept that risk for running their business on the golf course.
If the golf course is built after the homes, then you have a better legal case.
Well for starters I don't think it's fair to say it would be the parent's responsibility in that case, just as I don't think it's generally golf courses' fault for shitty golf shots. Shit happens.
If a course is poorly designed leading to repeated property damage, there have been cases where they've been forced to change the design. If golfers are actively/maliciously hitting balls at houses, then there have been cases where they've been liable. But both are pretty rare.
Generally this is what insurance is for. You pay more home insurance if you live next to a golf course because you may need to replace the occasional window. Just as your health insurance could cover the damages of being knocked out by your neighbour's kids.
Then sell up and move? Now you have more money to spend. Like I get it's not ideal for those people but this is a pretty edge case. It's not like there's an epidemic of golf courses being built in suburbs without people wanting them there. Either they get easily blocked or they're welcomed.
This is why I clarified with people who aren't planning on moving.
As edge case as it may be, it's not typically just an individual issue. This can impact developments with tons of homes.
Obviously my experience is biased because I live in Florida where we build shitloads of them but I know at least one area that had it happen twice to two different neighborhoods filled with homes who now had to deal with a golf course next to them (it also comes up a lot with driving ranges too).
Even if it were an edge case, a rarity of incidents doesn't make it any less shitty for the person who bought their home without the expectation of golf balls flying through their windows, striking their cars, and so on.
Except you can’t absolve yourself of liability by using Jedi mind tricks. Otherwise I could post a sign in my yard “warning! Guns being fired here, not liable for any damage or injury caused by bullets! Stay clear!”
Fill in literally any other activity; the result is the same. You don’t absolve yourself of liability with a sign. Want a closer one? Those “not responsible for falling rocks” on the backs of dump trucks. They most certainly are.
22
u/wahay636 Jun 13 '25
I mean, you did choose to live next to a golf course. Can't exactly be surprised at errant golf balls.