[Chellybean]

Originally Posted by mikeod

That's not what it says in California law. From lawguru.com:
this is not California it is Florida and the laws aren't the same

"The general law on the subject is that the homeowner assumes the risk of damage by living adjacent to the course.
COMPLETELY incorrect there is nothing in the statue that says General Law, where do you folks get your laws, obviously not from the statues or case law.
Additionally, the golfer is not negligent merely because a shot goes out of bounds. If that were true, then every baseball player to ever play the game would be negligent for hitting a foul ball into the stands.
This is completely not the same analogy, you take a risk at a base ball game and the balls are going away from you and there are nets to protect the stands behind home plate.
Certainly Tiger Woods hits them out of bounds too every now and then, but he acts as an ordinary reasonable golfer would to play it in bounds. There is clear california case law on these points of law. On the other hand, if the golfer intentionally or recklessly hits a ball at a home, then the golfer may be responsible."
We are in Florida not California?

It also depends on what was there first. If a golf course is constructed next to an existing home, damage is treated differently from when the home is constructed adjacent to an existing golf course. There was a case in FL where a golf course had to redesign a golf hole because of damage occurring to a home that was there before the course was constructed.
There is also case law that holds the Golf course responsible in building a safe course and is responsible for balls going out for bounds if there isn't enough trees along the boundary's of the course, and also research privacy Nuisances laws.

The standard for "reckless" is not that any wayward shot is "reckless" just because it causes damage. Reckless could be a case where a golfer decides to cut the corner of a dogleg hole by hitting a shot over the homes at the corner.
OMG are you kidding me that is Reckless, the course wasn't designed for that, the golfer takes the risk of hitting a house!

Regardless of the above, there is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right. No matter what the law requires, I would feel a responsibility to the homeowner.

Thank you are you a gentleman Golfer that is my whole point, the Laws can be swade either way, find a judge thats a golfer your chances are lower with the support of further case law, find a judge that lives on a golf course that doesn't play golf you chance go up with case law, now try to find a judge that doesn't believe in moral fiber, that a person should be responsible for damage may be harder, wait a minute am i in new york we have corrupt
judges there, l.o.l.