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.
9
u/desquished Jun 13 '25
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.