Errant golf balls

[paqdkq]

Two questions on errant golf balls. One, what is a golfers financial responsibility if he/she damages a house with an out of bounds shot? I always thought if a house is built along a fairway of a pre-existing course or one that is known to be built, it is their responsibility to pay for the damages. They knew when they purchased the house there was the possibility of damage by an errant shot.

Two, what is the proper way to look for/recover a ball hit into a yard on a course? I've seen houses with private property/no trespassing signs to discourage people from walking in the yard to retrieve a ball. Like above, if they live by a fairway they should expect the situation. Unless I'm mistaken, I doubt if a person would have a ball land in their yard that often to warrant any lawn damage while the golfer is retrieving the ball. Actually I feel like I'm picking up trash I put in his yard.

[TheVillageChicken]

Please never play a ball from the yard of a resident. It is also appropriate to report any damage of private property to the homeowner. We ask that you never retrieve your ball from a resident’s property.

Copied from Golf the Villages

[Golfingnut]

Two questions on errant golf balls. One, what is a golfers financial responsibility if he/she damages a house with an out of bounds shot? I always thought if a house is built along a fairway of a pre-existing course or one that is known to be built, it is their responsibility to pay for the damages. They knew when they purchased the house there was the possibility of damage by an errant shot.

Two, what is the proper way to look for/recover a ball hit into a yard on a course? I've seen houses with private property/no trespassing signs to discourage people from walking in the yard to retrieve a ball. Like above, if they live by a fairway they should expect the situation. Unless I'm mistaken, I doubt if a person would have a ball land in their yard that often to warrant any lawn damage while the golfer is retrieving the ball. Actually I feel like I'm picking up trash I put in his yard.

The golfer has ZERO responsibility financial or otherwise. If you recover a ball, you are trespassing. Most homeowners have no problem with that. There are; however, some that use the opportunity to act like a raving idiot. I leave the ball simply to avoid any conflict. Your call.

[TheVillageChicken]

This will soon turn into an ethics argument

[Golfingnut]

This will soon turn into an ethics argument

Not if posters stick to the question by not adding personal opinions rather than facts.

[Barefoot]

Please never play a ball from the yard of a resident. It is also appropriate to report any damage of private property to the homeowner. We ask that you never retrieve your ball from a resident’s property.

Copied from Golf the Villages

If we are relying on facts and not personal opinion, wouldn't "Golf the Villages" have the facts?

[TheVillageChicken]

Not if posters stick to the question by not adding personal opinions rather than facts.

Can I interest you in some ocean front property in Arizona?

[Marigold]

Good topic! I live on a golf course here and wish that ALL the golfers would obey the rules and respect the fact that the private property of the homeowner is not part of the golf course. While MOST golfers are courteous and follow the rules, we do have those which have......walked around the property looking for their golf ball, played their ball from our lawn, rode their golf cart across our lawn, thrown their cigarette butts onto our property. The worst offenders are those who walk off the course to our lanai screen to take pictures, critique decorating and furniture, touch the shrubs to see if they are real and those who shout hello repeatedly in through the screen to their friends because they think they live here. (Happens more then you think!)

We love living on the golf course and have learned quite a bit about the game and technique from the golfers. They have become our entertainment and many are new friends. We chat with them as we dine on the lanai or garden.
We both are golfers and respect the privacy of others, leaving our balls when they are off course. For the homeowners who live on the golf course, we hope that you use our wayward balls when you play. My balls are the pink Noodles and hubby's are the neon yellows.

[tpop1]

From So. Florida Sun Sentinel Newspaper

Who pays for golf ball damage to a condo? - Sun Sentinel (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-30/business/fl-broken-windows-golfball-condocol-20110830_1_condo-unit-country-club-golf)Who pays for golf ball damage to a condo? - Sun Sentinel (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-30/business/fl-broken-windows-golfball-condocol-20110830_1_condo-unit-country-club-golf)

"Legal experts say being in the line of fire comes with the territory when you buy into a condo or homeowners community that borders a golf course.

"The golf courses were not built overnight," said Donna Berger, of Katzman, Garfinkel and Berger, one of the largest community association law firms in the state. "I live on a golf course, too, and have had to deal with damages. But as the law sees it, owners assume the risk when they move in." She said it is similar when home buyers purchase a home near an airport. It is difficult for them to file a lawsuit based on airplane noise.

She said Florida and other states have routinely upheld that principle, adding that an owner may have grounds for a lawsuit when the golfing-related damage rises to the level of a general nuisance, such as a home or unit being struck on a regular basis."

[e-flyer]

On courses along a busy road, if someone hooks or slices a drive and it hits a car, is the golfer or the car owner liable? I would think the golfer, but I'm not familiar with the laws. I actually saw this happen first hand last week. A terrible hook on par three from one of the folks we were paired with that went though some trees, we saw it bounce on 466 at the intersection of BV, lucky for him it didn't hit a stopped or moving car.

[Villager Audio Video]

It's always the golfers responsibility for his or her own ball and any damage it may cause. That's golf etiquette 101

[DougB]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Here we go again!

[mulligan]

It's always the golfers responsibility for his or her own ball and any damage it may cause. That's golf etiquette 101

Perhaps morally, but most definitely not legally in this state.

[Golfingnut]

It's always the golfers responsibility for his or her own ball and any damage it may cause. That's golf etiquette 101

Not true. It may be etiquette, but the golfer has zero legal responsibility. Please don't make up answers to serious questions. It can distort the true facts.

[Villager Audio Video]

Make up answers? Read it again. Who else could be held accountable for a golfers lack of ability to keep his or her ball on the golf course. If you hit it off the map and damage a home and choose to walk away, that's on you.

[Barefoot]

Not true. It may be etiquette, but the golfer has zero legal responsibility. Please don't make up answers to serious questions. It can distort the true facts.

I guess there is etiquette (see Golf The Villages) and ethics and morality and the law and the golden rule. Pick one, and act accordingly.

[Golfingnut]

I guess there is etiquette (see Golf The Villages) and ethics and morality and the law and the golden rule. Pick one, and act accordingly.

Absolutely, but the poster stated that it would be the RESPONSIBILITY of the golfer to pay for any damage and that is false. It is the responsibility of the home owner not the golfer.

[Golfingnut]

Make up answers? Read it again. Who else could be held accountable for a golfers lack of ability to keep his or her ball on the golf course. If you hit it off the map and damage a home and choose to walk away, that's on you.

The home owner is responsible for any damage, not the golfer. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse to make up your own.

[Barefoot]

The home owner is responsible for any damage, not the golfer. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse to make up your own.

There seems to be differing opinions on legal responsibility. This is one lawyer's opinion ....

Our opinion happens to be the correct answer under the law. There is no viable "House on the Golf Course" defense. You can't claim the owner was asking for it when he bought that beautiful house on the 12th fairway. Also, the existence of property insurance is NEVER determinative in assessing liability. You can’t even mention the existence of an insurance policy in court except as evidence to establish ownership. There are no ifs and or buts about it, if you break someone’s window with your golf ball… run away like a child and deny it was you ... No, break out your checkbook and pony up.

[BarryRX]

The stuff below is from this website if anyone needs a source. It seems to say that unless there is negligence on the part of the golfer or unless the design of the course is deficient, or the ownership of the home predates the planning and existence of the golf course, the responsibility lies with the homeowner.

GOLF COURSE LIABILITY TO ADJOINING HOMEOWNERS Markotsis & Lieberman, P.C. Attorneys Hicksville New York (http://www.mlesq.com/Articles/Golf-Course-Liability-to-Adjoining-Homeowners.shtml)

Over the past fifteen years or so, there has been an explosion in the number of people who golf. This, in turn, has led to an increase in the number of golf courses. As the number of golf courses has increased, so too has the number of homes which adjoin those golf courses. Since, as the Court of Appeals has noted, "even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional 'hook' or 'slice,'" Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311, 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 353 (1970), one would think that the proximity of the homes to golf courses is a liability disaster waiting to happen.
The only reported case in New York in which an adjoining landowner sought to recover against a golf course for personal injuries resulting from a shot from the course is Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347 (1970). The injured plaintiff sought recovery under theories of nuisance and negligence in design. Nussbaum's residence was situated on land abutting the thirteenth hole of defendant's country club, with approximately 20 to 30 feet of rough containing 45 to 60 foot high trees between the fairway and plaintiff's patio. The proper line of flight from the tee to the green on the thirteenth hole was at a substantial angle from the property line. A trespasser on the golf course hit a shot from the thirteenth tee which hooked and allegedly hit Nussbaum, who was on his patio at the time. Nussbaum at 314, 317 N.Y.S.2d at 349-50.
The court held that the design of the golf course could not support a claim of nuisance or negligent design. Simply intruding on a neighboring property by reason of the golf balls is not, in and of itself, enough to create a nuisance. "[O]ne who deliberately decides to reside in the suburbs on very desirable lots adjoining golf clubs and thus receive the social benefits and other not inconsiderable advantages of country club surroundings must accept the occasional, concomitant annoyances." Nussbaum at 315-16, 317 N.Y.S.2d at 351 (citing to Patton v. Westwood Country Club Co., 247 N.E.761 (Ohio App. 1969) discussed below). Finding that a nuisance would need to be a continuous invasion of rights, an occasional golf ball on the Nussbaum's property was not enough to constitute a nuisance. Prior to the incident in question, there was no evidence of any balls striking Nussbaum's house, though there were golf balls found in the bushes and fence area on their property near the rough. Nussbaum at 316-17, 317 N.Y.S.2d at 351-52. The court noted, however, that "[r]emedial steps would be called for only if defendant had notice of a danger." Nussbaum at 317, 317 N.Y.S.2d at 352.
Using Patton as support, the court determined that a homeowner who has decided to reside on property abutting a golf course is not entitled to the same protection as a traveler on a highway. The determination was based on a factual comparison with Gleason v. Hillcrest Golf Course, 148 Misc. 246, 265 N.Y.S. 886 (Mun. Ct. Queens Co. 1933), finding the Nussbaum barrier was not inadequate as in Gleason (a six foot high wire fence) and the direction of tee to green was away from the Nussbaum property (not parallel like in Gleason). Nussbaum at 316-17, 317 N.Y.S.2d at 351-52.
____________
* - Douglas M. Lieberman is a member of Markotsis & Lieberman, a general practice firm in Hicksville, New York and a former Co-Editor-in-Chief of Nassau Lawyer.
In Patton, supra, plaintiff commenced an action to enjoin the operation of defendant golf club in a manner whereby golf balls landed on her property. Defendant constructed a nine-hole golf course in 1914, adding another nine holes in 1924. In 1955, Patton purchased a parcel immediately adjacent to the fifteenth fairway, constructing her home there in 1956. Patton's back yard abutted the fifteenth fairway, approximately 180 yards from the fifteenth tee. Patton at 762.
At the trial of the action, there was evidence that golf balls landed on Patton's property on numerous occasions, breaking windows several times. There was also evidence that golf balls nearly struck one daughter several times, actually striking a daughter on one occasion. The record further showed that the condition complained of by plaintiff existed from the time her house was built and she moved in. Though Patton contended that the situation worsened over the years, the court found that the condition had remained constant. Patton at 762-64.
The trial court's denial of an injunction was affirmed. Without determining whether the act of hitting golf balls onto Patton's property was a nuisance, the court did determine that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by moving to the property after the course was already in operation. Patton at 764. Further, there was evidence that in 1963 changes were made to the fifteenth fairway, including moving the fairway farther from, and planting 20 pine trees opposite, the Patton premises.
An injunction was also denied in Hellman v. La Cumbre Golf and Country Club, 8 Cal. Rptr. 293 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.. 1992). In August 1985, the plaintiffs' purchased their home which was constructed in 1970 and was adjacent to the tenth fairway of defendant's golf course, which had been in operation since 1957. Plaintiffs visited the home three times prior to purchase, once finding a golf ball in a gutter and also pacing the distance between the tenth fairway and the property line (determining that golf balls would not be a hazard). There was an expectation by one of the plaintiffs that living adjacent to a golf course may result in some golf balls landing on the property. Hellman at 294.
Plaintiffs claimed that, since moving in, five to ten balls landed on their property each week, with balls landing every day of the week, more on weekends. The plaintiffs were nearly hit on several occasions and their automobiles were dented by golf balls. They would not have guests outside during the day and would not use the pool for fear of being hit. The golf club put forth testimony that there were an average of 100 players daily and that the tees were in the same location as they had been since 1959 (except that championship tees were added). Its expert testified that the course met the standard practice at the time it was built, as well as at the time of the trial, relating to design and setbacks safety. Hellman at 294-95.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision denying the plaintiff's monetary damages and injunctive relief. There was a sufficient basis for the lower court to conclude that the rate of balls landing on plaintiffs' property was constant since the club opened; that there had not been an increase in the number of players using the club over that period of time; that the tees were not moved; and that there were five to ten balls a week which landed on plaintiffs' property. That the plaintiffs acquired their property with knowledge of its location next to the golf course put them on constructive notice that golf balls would land on their property (though this, in and of itself, is not sufficient to bar a claim for nuisance, it is a factor). As such, there was no basis for the lower court to find that a nuisance existed. Hellman at 296-97.
However, in another California case an injunction requiring a golf course to redesign two of its holes was upheld in Sierra Screw Products v. Azusa Green, Inc., 151 Cal. Rptr. 799 (Cal. App. 1979). Defendants operated a golf course beginning approximately 1964. In 1969, the plaintiff purchased a parcel of undeveloped land from defendant adjacent to the third and fourth fairways. At the time of the purchase there were no fences, trees or other obstructions between the golf course and the undeveloped parcel. A provision of the Contract of Sale between the parties obligated defendant to plant trees and install a fence along the border at plaintiff's request. Sierra Screw at 801. In 1971, construction of plaintiff's building was completed. Shortly thereafter, golf balls came onto plaintiff's property, hitting automobiles on the premises. This led to plaintiff requesting that defendant plant the trees as set forth in the Contract. Plaintiff itself installed a fence along its property line, obtaining a credit from defendant for what defendant was to install. Id.
The lower court found that during the period of August 1971 and the date of the trial, "innumerable golf balls" landed on plaintiff's property from the third and fourth fairways which caused damage to automobiles and, on occasion, to employees who had been struck. Id. The lower court also found that the golf balls landing on plaintiff's property were the result of inadequate fencing and the design of the third and fourth fairways. The lower court concluded that the operation of the third and fourth fairways constituted a nuisance entitling the plaintiffs to an injunction directing a redesign of the two holes to "minimize" the intrusion of golf balls onto the plaintiff's property. Id. at 801-02. In affirming the judgment, the appellate court determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the lower court's findings. Further, the language in the Contract did not limit the defendant's liability for intruding golf balls nor did the Contract create an implied easement to allow golf balls to land on plaintiff's property.
It appears from these cases that in order for a landowner to successfully claim a nuisance against an adjoining golf course, there must be continuous, not occasional, instances of golf balls landing on the landowner's property. The location of the property in relation to the layout of the course is also a factor, as is the existence and extent of barriers between the course and property.
Whether the existence of an operational course predates the claimant's home is an important factor as is the claimant's knowledge at the time of their purchase of the possibility and probability of golf balls entering their property. Whether the golf course took any steps to minimize the intrusion once it became aware of it may also be a factor.
One who dreams of living on or next to a golf course must be advised that a golf ball may very well lawfully shatter that dream.

[bdabob]

We live on a golf course and we have no problems with golfers walking onto our property to collect their errant shots.
We do object to those that try and play from our lawn; it is out of bounds and on private property.
We also objected to the player that drove his cart 25 feet onto our lawn and when I confronted him he pointed to his handicap sticker and said he was permitted to do so because of his disability!
No damage to the house yet but I would hope that the player concerned would make the effort to contact us. We are not convinced that we should have to pay a penalty for repairs after paying a premium for the location.

[rubicon]

I once researched this issue and like so many other the legal opinions cases etc were all over the board. In some golfing communities the developers set policy to settle difference. However since a golfer and probably the homeowner were never signatories to the policy adherence is unlikely.

a gifted attorney can argue this issue on either side and many probably do.
The negligence of a golfer can only be determined in a court of law. Getting the case to court is the first hurdle. The reason this is such an area of unsettled law is that more often than not the damages are minimal.

However some day some where a very wealthy individual is going to be struck down with a golf ball and either be killed or receiving permanent disabling injuries and when that happens watch how quickly that golfer's inabilities, lack of proper training are questioned and the design of the golf course so as not to protect an individual.

Homes in TV are much closer to fairways than most golf course communities and that lack of safe separation will come into play

[jimmy D]

The golfer has ZERO responsibility financial or otherwise. If you recover a ball, you are trespassing. Most homeowners have no problem with that. There are; however, some that use the opportunity to act like a raving idiot. I leave the ball simply to avoid any conflict. Your call.

Wrong Wrong. The Golfer IS responsible for damages. The Buyer cannot sue and win for damages beyond Golfer responsibility and the Ball now belongs to the Homeowner.

[Golfingnut]

Wrong Wrong. The Golfer IS responsible for damages. The Buyer cannot sue and win for damages beyond Golfer responsibility and the Ball now belongs to the Homeowner.

Wrong Wrong. The golfer has no responsibility. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.

[drcar]

Make up answers? Read it again. Who else could be held accountable for a golfers lack of ability to keep his or her ball on the golf course. If you hit it off the map and damage a home and choose to walk away, that's on you.

You need to check the facts, the golfer IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE, the home has assume a risk buying on the golf course.

[chuckinca]

If I am driving on a road and another car hits my car he isn't responsible because I knew the road was not a safe place to drive.

.

[Polar Bear]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[Barefoot]

You need to check the facts, the golfer IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE, the home has assume a risk buying on the golf course.

Um, drcar, that's exactly the problem ... the "facts" are all over the map!
It seems that some court cases result in no responsibility for the golfer, and other court cases result in damages being assessed to the golfer.

It's really a guess as to who is legally responsible. But morally, I don't think anyone feels comfortable breaking a window and running away.

[Golfingnut]

Correct, I would feel responsible and step up to the plate and take ownership. The law however, requires the home owner to take responsibility, not the golfer.

[billethkid]

As usually turns out discussions trend toward the hypothetical.

does a home owner really expect to know which golfer hit an errant ball?
does a golfer expect to know whether their errant ball did any damage?

There are very few clear, open and shut cases. And most who DO know or discover their errant shot created damage.....do the right thing and man up.

The discussions are amusing to :popcorn:

btk

[TheVillageChicken]

Q. How do you keep a bunch of old folks busy?
A. Give them a hypothetical situation to argue over.

[Golfingnut]

Q. How do you keep a bunch of old folks busy?
A. Give them a hypothetical situation to argue over.

So true. I could help by giving my view so no discussion would be needed. LOL

[TheCollierCpl]

On courses along a busy road, if someone hooks or slices a drive and it hits a car, is the golfer or the car owner liable? I would think the golfer, but I'm not familiar with the laws. I actually saw this happen first hand last week. A terrible hook on par three from one of the folks we were paired with that went though some trees, we saw it bounce on 466 at the intersection of BV, lucky for him it didn't hit a stopped or moving car.

There is what is called "assumed risk". This is generally present when you buy a golf course home. (you know there is risk and accept it). There is ot assumed risk of being hit by a golf ball when traveling along a highway.

For the most part, golf purses carry insurance that protects homeowners from a higher level of damage. Many golf course homes have waivers, or limited waivers in their contracts. I don't know how it is in TV.

[graciegirl]

Q. How do you keep a bunch of old folks busy?
A. Give them a hypothetical situation to argue over.






Chicken, you are a great deal more intelligent than you look.:BigApplause:

[LAshby50]

When I lived on a course in Minnesota I have a zero deductible glass waiver for the house much like you have for a car. But I still had to repair stucco chips where golf balls hit them. I knew it went with the territory. One of our neighbors had the same window broken 13 times. We were not allowed to put up nets due to neighborhood rules. I knew when I came to The Villages I had enough of living on a golf course since I spend enough time playing. I have never broken anything on anyone's house but have left my business card a couple times when I hit the side of the house. Our club had a rule that was never enforced that you and your guests (meaning you) are responsible for any damage done to neighboring properties. We found out that rule had no teeth. Even if the club knew who did it they said there is nothing they can do.

[murray607]

I saw this on the Golf Channel website today............scary

Reno Man Gets Probation for Golf Course Shooting | Golf Channel (http://www.golfchannel.com/news/associated-press/reno-man-gets-probation-golf-course-shooting/?cid=Email_MondayNL_20131216)

[Bogie Shooter]

There is what is called "assumed risk". This is generally present when you buy a golf course home. (you know there is risk and accept it). There is ot assumed risk of being hit by a golf ball when traveling along a highway.

For the most part, golf purses carry insurance that protects homeowners from a higher level of damage. Many golf course homes have waivers, or limited waivers in their contracts. I don't know how it is in TV.

What does this mean, golf purses?

[mulligan]

What does this mean, golf purses?

It means his auto-correct is working.

[murray607]

What does this mean, golf purses?

Sporrans, as worn on Scottish Golf Links. Kilts are optional

[ronsroni]

If IF'S and BUT'S were
pots and pans,
the world would be a kitchen.

PLAYING THROUGH........

[graciegirl]

If IF'S and BUT'S were
pots and pans,
the world would be a kitchen.

PLAYING THROUGH........



I can't help it, Roni. I just love you.


ANYONE FOUND HER JACKET WITH HER GLASSES??????????

[RErmer]

We live on a course, and welcome golfers to retrieve their balls (though not hit from our yard - it is OB!). I want to find one of those signs that says "Please feel free to retrieve your ball". Seems to me if you buy on a golf course you should know what you're signing up for!

[CRTAYLORISNOW@GMAIL.COM]

We live on a championship course and understand that golf balls vs. window panes are the trade off for the privacy and views that the course offers us. Yesterday, we had a golf ball come through our window from players out in a late evening rain storm. We watched the two players take off like a bolt of lightning struck. They made no attempt to even make eye contact with us or even look at the house for damage and sped quickly away toward the Bonifay Club House. The second player didn't even take his shot and neither one played the hole.
We understand that the financial responsibilities for repairs is our burden, but the person who damages the property also has a responsibility to notify the homeowner in some way. If you are too embarrassed, have the ambassador tell the homeowner! I hate to think of all the water damage we would have had if we were away. A little common courtesy(and common sense) goes a long way.

[Chellybean]

it is unfortunate there are so many confused people here and Golfnut is the most confused.
the golfer is 100% responsible for damage and retrieving a ball is trespassing.
there are no rules or by laws that say if you live on a course you assume the liability.
And now just the Moral issue alone should be enough to fess up.

[TheVillageChicken]

it is unfortunate there are so many confused people here and Golfnut is the most confused.
the golfer is 100% responsible for damage and retrieving a ball is trespassing.
there are no rules or by laws that say if you live on a course you assume the liability.
And now just the Moral issue alone should be enough to fess up.

You are presenting opinions as facts. Here are some facts presented as facts.

Under Florida Statute, it is only trespassing if the property is fenced or posted, or the person entering the property is verbally told to leave by the owner or the owners authorized agent and refuses to do so. As to responsibility for damages, the golfer is legally responsible only if there were reckless or intentional misconduct. As for negligence, the courts have almost always ruled for the golfer under the doctrine of "assumption of risk."

I do agree with your last sentence.

[Barefoot]

As to responsibility for damages, the golfer is legally responsible only if there were reckless or intentional misconduct.

Since the golfer is intentionally and recklessly hitting the ball as hard as he can in the direction of someone's home, obviously the damage isn't resulting from an accident, but from a deliberate act.

[chuckinca]

Barefoot, Esq?

(also my laymen opinion)

.

[784caroline]

Since the golfer is intentionally and recklessly hitting the ball as hard as he can in the direction of someone's home, obviously the damage isn't resulting from an accident, but from a deliberate act.

Barefoot.....do you golf.....I guess you have never hit a hook, or wayward shot..and the direction of that shot is not aimed at any house...intentionally. If my aim was that good I would be a low handicap golfer and I would be focused on the flag.

[DonH57]

Sometimes a golf ball doesn't go where it was told. If I could hit off the tee without an ocasionall hook or slice I'd be a happy camper, or well, golfer.

[George Bieniaszek]

Unless you have very good video surveillance on your property which clearly identifies the golfer tee up his ball and aim directly at your house and cause damage, that would be the golfer's responsibility for damage caused to your home.

Golfers do not do that. They are focused on that flag in the middle of the green. YES, they do on occasion hit an errant shot and it lands somewhere unintended. The actions they take defines them as a good citizen or a spineless knucklehead as a previous poster described two golfers running away after hitting a ball and breaking a window.

As stated numerous times in this post, morally and/or ethically, you should go over, apologize and offer to pay at least the deductible for any damage you do. Legally, you can just walk away, go to a country club, buy some beers and laugh and joke about what you did with your golf buddies, if it makes you sleep better at night.

I have never had a problem with property owners when I approached them and politely asked if I can retrieve my ball off their property if it was in plain view and nor buried in their flower/shrub beds.

[Chellybean]

You are presenting opinions as facts. Here are some facts presented as facts.

Under Florida Statute, it is only trespassing if the property is fenced or posted, or the person entering the property is verbally told to leave by the owner or the owners authorized agent and refuses to do so. As to responsibility for damages, the golfer is legally responsible only if there were reckless or intentional misconduct. As for negligence, the courts have almost always ruled for the golfer under the doctrine of "assumption of risk."

I do agree with your last sentence.

number one there are alot of posted property's and the golf don't care and i have seen it first hand. FACT
2nd the golf course is clearly marked on where the boundary's are and Golfers ignore the boundary and signs and come onto peoples property without so much as asking and feel that they are entitled to since they play the course; FACT
FACT There in no laws allowing people to trespass and if you come on to peoples property knowingly where the boundary's are clearly Marked you are trespassing, we can argue this all day long, it is the disrespect of a golfers when he trespasses onto someones property to retrieve a 2 dollar ball, if you can't give up your ball due to 2 dollars than get out of the golf game.
3Rd where in gods name do you see case law that the Golfer isn't responsible if he isn't reckless, for property damage.
I would love to argue this point in front of the Judge with you:
FACT You are responsible for damage from you golf ball and people know this, this is why people run away and do not fess up.
This is a gentleman sport and more times then not people don't fess up.
People are way to confused on the Law.
Example; if you are in range of getting hit by a ball being adjacent to a course it is a accident and not malicious, however it doesn't exempt the person from being sued for damages and winning.
the real issue is here we are all adults and when you put a golf club in peoples hands they act as children, if all Golfers where honorable we even wouldn't be have multiply discussions over this

[Chellybean]

Unless you have very good video surveillance on your property which clearly identifies the golfer tee up his ball and aim directly at your house and cause damage, that would be the golfer's responsibility for damage caused to your home.

Golfers do not do that. They are focused on that flag in the middle of the green. YES, they do on occasion hit an errant shot and it lands somewhere unintended. The actions they take defines them as a good citizen or a spineless knucklehead as a previous poster described two golfers running away after hitting a ball and breaking a window.

As stated numerous times in this post, morally and/or ethically, you should go over, apologize and offer to pay at least the deductible for any damage you do. Legally, you can just walk away, go to a country club, buy some beers and laugh and joke about what you did with your golf buddies, if it makes you sleep better at night.

I have never had a problem with property owners when I approached them and politely asked if I can retrieve my ball off their property if it was in plain view and nor buried in their flower/shrub beds.

FACT: you can not legally walk away
FACT read the law, God people are ignorant where do you folks get you info?

[kittygilchrist]

If you've been reading this thread and are interested in trespass law, I started a separate thread. Doing my best not to post anything without careful research.

[TheVillageChicken]

number one there are alot of posted property's and the golf don't care and i have seen it first hand. FACT
2nd the golf course is clearly marked on where the boundary's are and Golfers ignore the boundary and signs and come onto peoples property without so much as asking and feel that they are entitled to since they play the course; FACT
FACT There in no laws allowing people to trespass and if you come on to peoples property knowingly where the boundary's are clearly Marked you are trespassing, we can argue this all day long, it is the disrespect of a golfers when he trespasses onto someones property to retrieve a 2 dollar ball, if you can't give up your ball due to 2 dollars than get out of the golf game.
3Rd where in gods name do you see case law that the Golfer isn't responsible if he isn't reckless, for property damage.
I would love to argue this point in front of the Judge with you:
FACT You are responsible for damage from you golf ball and people know this, this is why people run away and do not fess up.
This is a gentleman sport and more times then not people don't fess up.
People are way to confused on the Law.
Example; if you are in range of getting hit by a ball being adjacent to a course it is a accident and not malicious, however it doesn't exempt the person from being sued for damages and winning.
the real issue is here we are all adults and when you put a golf club in peoples hands they act as children, if all Golfers where honorable we even wouldn't be have multiply discussions over this

I got my information from a former Florida judge.

[graciegirl]

FACT: you can not legally walk away
FACT read the law, God people are ignorant where do you folks get you info?


I googled this;



Living on a golf course means understanding insurance - GOLF.com (http://www.golf.com/special-features/cover-your-asset)

[Mikeod]

FACT: you can not legally walk away
FACT read the law, God people are ignorant where do you folks get you info?

That's not what it says in California law. From lawguru.com:

"The general law on the subject is that the homeowner assumes the risk of damage by living adjacent to the course. 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. 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."

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.

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.

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.

[Chellybean]

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.

[Chellybean]

I got my information from a former Florida judge.

MUST be a Golfer l.o.l.

[TheVillageChicken]

MUST be a Golfer l.o.l.

Nope, but not because I didn't want her to be. Her sister won every tournament she played in her senior year of high school, but young "S" was more interested in raising hell. She has come a long way since then.

[kittygilchrist]

As a golf course homeowner, I understood and accepted the risk of balls hitting the house without needing to figure out who would be liable for damage.

What has surprised me has been this community where private property rights have been so poorly respected. IMO, TOTV and these discussions have been instrumental in helping us better understand each other's points of view and a shift away from cavalier attitudes toward another's turf (literal turf).

Discussions are beneficial, if tiring.

[Mikeod]

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.

The point I tried to make is that, depending on state laws which do vary from state to state, you CAN legally walk away. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's legal.

My parents lived on a golf course and had damage to their home from errant golf shots. Repairs were their responsibility, not the golfers'.

[Chellybean]

The point I tried to make is that, depending on state laws which do vary from state to state, you CAN legally walk away. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's legal.

My parents lived on a golf course and had damage to their home from errant golf shots. Repairs were their responsibility, not the golfers'.

the Florida and New York law is FACT the golfer is responsible for damage PERIOD!
Any other state i can't give you the facts but i would find it hard to believe it is legal to damage someones property and legally walk away.
That means a golfer could show little respect for surrounding property's and get away with anarchy, doesn't sound right to me, but we are talking about Florida and in the villages.
Also even if you are in a restricted convenient of restrictions like we have in the Villages, state Law still Preempts any local regulations or by-laws.
There are many things in the Villages that are preempted by state law and who has deeper pockets is the question.
Bottom line i have encountered many golfers who don't respect private property and alot of post in Village forum shows that is so, so let your own opinion be the judge.

[blueash]

the Florida and New York law is FACT the golfer is responsible for damage PERIOD!
Any other state i can't give you the facts but i would find it hard to believe it is legal to damage someones property and legally walk away.
That means a golfer could show little respect for surrounding property's and get away with anarchy, doesn't sound right to me, but we are talking about Florida and in the villages.
Also even if you are in a restricted convenient of restrictions like we have in the Villages, state Law still Preempts any local regulations or by-laws.
There are many things in the Villages that are preempted by state law and who has deeper pockets is the question.
Bottom line i have encountered many golfers who don't respect private property and alot of post in Village forum shows that is so, so let your own opinion be the judge.

Chelly, you have now several times posted your bold and ALL CAPS error which you claim is FACT that the law says golfers are liable for damage. Please read the link posted by Gracie or simply use Google as it is your friend. Unless a golfer is reckless not just a poor striker, or the golfer can be shown to have deliberately aimed at the house, the homeowner assumes the risk of damage when choosing to buy on an existing course. So don't buy a home 150 yard on the right from the tee. If you wish to continue to assert the law is against the golfer, please post your authoritative citations as others who read your strong statements seem, based on my reading, to have been misinformed by you.

[Chellybean]

Chelly, you have now several times posted your bold and ALL CAPS error which you claim is FACT that the law says golfers are liable for damage. Please read the link posted by Gracie or simply use Google as it is your friend. Unless a golfer is reckless not just a poor striker, or the golfer can be shown to have deliberately aimed at the house, the homeowner assumes the risk of damage when choosing to buy on an existing course. So don't buy a home 150 yard on the right from the tee. If you wish to continue to assert the law is against the golfer, please post your authoritative citations as others who read your strong statements seem, based on my reading, to have been misinformed by you.

there is no way i am going to convince you or any other person, the law is clear and against the golfer

[Chellybean]

Chelly, you have now several times posted your bold and ALL CAPS error which you claim is FACT that the law says golfers are liable for damage. Please read the link posted by Gracie or simply use Google as it is your friend. Unless a golfer is reckless not just a poor striker, or the golfer can be shown to have deliberately aimed at the house, the homeowner assumes the risk of damage when choosing to buy on an existing course. So don't buy a home 150 yard on the right from the tee. If you wish to continue to assert the law is against the golfer, please post your authoritative citations as others who read your strong statements seem, based on my reading, to have been misinformed by you.

maybe you should read the statue; Gracie's post does not speak of fact or the law in Florida, the only thing i can figure is you are one of the disrespectful golfers.

[CFrance]

FACT: you can not legally walk away
FACT read the law, God people are ignorant where do you folks get you info?
FACT: Your last statement was totally uncalled for.

[Chellybean]

Sorry; you need to get your fact straight and reread the FACTS not someone opinion fof California golf course.

[blueash]

Legal experts say being in the line of fire comes with the territory when you buy into a condo or homeowners community that borders a golf course.

"The golf courses were not built overnight," said Donna Berger, of Katzman, Garfinkel and Berger, one of the largest community association law firms in the state (Florida). "I live on a golf course, too, and have had to deal with damages. But as the law sees it, owners assume the risk when they move in." She said it is similar when home buyers purchase a home near an airport. It is difficult for them to file a lawsuit based on airplane noise.

She said Florida and other states have routinely upheld that principle, adding that an owner may have grounds for a lawsuit when the golfing-related damage rises to the level of a general nuisance, such as a home or unit being struck on a regular basis.

[Chellybean]

Legal experts say being in the line of fire comes with the territory when you buy into a condo or homeowners community that borders a golf course.

"The golf courses were not built overnight," said Donna Berger, of Katzman, Garfinkel and Berger, one of the largest community association law firms in the state (Florida). "I live on a golf course, too, and have had to deal with damages. But as the law sees it, owners assume the risk when they move in." She said it is similar when home buyers purchase a home near an airport. It is difficult for them to file a lawsuit based on airplane noise.

She said Florida and other states have routinely upheld that principle, adding that an owner may have grounds for a lawsuit when the golfing-related damage rises to the level of a general nuisance, such as a home or unit being struck on a regular basis.

This the exact point, the villages has built homes at close proximity to golf course number one and now takes on some of the responsibility.
Two we are not talking about noise we are talking about property damage due to golf balls.
I don't think anyone is complaining with the occasional shot here or there or a window broken every few year.
we are talking about continuous trespassing damage etc... and weather you believe it or not the Golfer is responsible for damage.
The term is not only General nuisance it is privacy nuisance also which has the responsibility of the golf course, designer, developer etc.. are held liable.
You can find case law both ways, but are strongly on the homeowners side for a situation like the villages for property damage and nuisance.
again if people follow moral fiber issue the law won't have to come into play.

[scarecrow1]

I thought a plaintive had to prove negligence when it came to damages? Not every golf shots are intentional,only the holes in one.

[rubicon]

The law is settled until its not. A homeowner on a golf course assumes the risk unless or until there is an intervening cause. A homeowner has to post no trespassing sign or a person can trespass...except that The Villages has published instructions not to retrieve errant balls. Is it possible that a designed flaw can be a basis for a lawsuit. You bet it can. In fact the Sun Sentinel article someone posted about the homes and condo's speaks to an issue that causes concern. the condo owner claimed that had she been home when that golf ball went through her window landed just where is normally sits to watch TV. Nothing was done because 99.9% of the damage done by golf balls amounts to pennies. However suppose that woman had been sitting in her chair and was seriously injured or killed . I make book that an attorney would fie suit against anyone remotely connected with accident.

another post that caught my eye concerned the poster who claims people have been continually abusive and causing mayhem driving their carts on lawn hitting the ball from the yard. I wonder what course these people live on?

But make no mistake attorneys are in the business of challenging laws and given a sufficient monetary prize they will sue anyone any where because that's what they do. Watch it Tiger your not judgment proof

[DonH57]

I thought a plaintive had to prove negligence when it came to damages? Not every golf shots are intentional,only the holes in one.

Same here. Buying a home next to a golf course and not expecting a misplaced ball to be in your yard is no different than choosing a home next to a train track and complain about the train coming thru. Pretty common sense.

[Chellybean]

The law is settled until its not. A homeowner on a golf course assumes the risk unless or until there is an intervening cause. A homeowner has to post no trespassing sign or a person can trespass...except that The Villages has published instructions not to retrieve errant balls. Is it possible that a designed flaw can be a basis for a lawsuit. You bet it can. In fact the Sun Sentinel article someone posted about the homes and condo's speaks to an issue that causes concern. the condo owner claimed that had she been home when that golf ball went through her window landed just where is normally sits to watch TV. Nothing was done because 99.9% of the damage done by golf balls amounts to pennies. However suppose that woman had been sitting in her chair and was seriously injured or killed . I make book that an attorney would fie suit against anyone remotely connected with accident.

another post that caught my eye concerned the poster who claims people have been continually abusive and causing mayhem driving their carts on lawn hitting the ball from the yard. I wonder what course these people live on?

But make no mistake attorneys are in the business of challenging laws and given a sufficient monetary prize they will sue anyone any where because that's what they do. Watch it Tiger your not judgment proof

i agree with everything you said except the no trespassing signs. the boundary's are marked and there is no confusion in were private property start's and the golf course ends.So under Florida law you then are knowingly trespassing.
HOWEVER!, But now you have to prove that in court and try to prove what the golf was thinking which is not easy.
So the solution is to put up no trespassing signs up so there is no confusion or question that the home owner doesn't want anyone to trespass.
Now the question is will golfers respect that.
most don't and feel entitlement. and this is where all the hubbub comes from.

[Chellybean]

Same here. Buying a home next to a golf course and not expecting a misplaced ball to be in your yard is no different than choosing a home next to a train track and complain about the train coming thru. Pretty common sense.

This is not a close comparison, having a train go by and not on your property is alot different;
When your a none golfer and own your own property no one tells you that you will have AHOLE golfers not respecting rules of the golf course and common sense to stay off peoples property.
I don think coming a couple feet onto someones property to retrieve a ball is the problem.
Its the AHOLE golfer that come in the property 25' and with his friend playing hide and go seek for there ball 10 times a day without even asking.
And then there are the ones that hit your house and don,t even ask if they did any damage just where is there 2.00 ball.
Come on folks who isn't using there common sense here.
we can beat it to death.

[TheVillageChicken]

This is not a close comparison, having a train go by and not on your property is alot different;
When your a none golfer and own your own property no one tells you that you will have AHOLE golfers not respecting rules of the golf course and common sense to stay off peoples property.
I don think coming a couple feet onto someones property to retrieve a ball is the problem.
Its the AHOLE golfer that come in the property 25' and with his friend playing hide and go seek for there ball 10 times a day without even asking.
And then there are the ones that hit your house and don,t even ask if they did any damage just where is there 2.00 ball.
Come on folks who isn't using there common sense here.
we can beat it to death.

I think what you are saying is that it ain't over until you feel like you have had the last word. That might happen when you start using argument instead of contradiction.

[kittygilchrist]

i agree with everything you said except the no trespassing signs. the boundary's are marked and there is no confusion in were private property start's and the golf course ends.So under Florida law you then are knowingly trespassing.
HOWEVER!, But now you have to prove that in court and try to prove what the golf was thinking which is not easy.
So the solution is to put up no trespassing signs up so there is no confusion or question that the home owner doesn't want anyone to trespass.
Now the question is will golfers respect that.
most don't and feel entitlement. and this is where all the hubbub comes from.

It is not necessary to post no trespassing signs. The homeowner has rights of no trespass automatically to what is called the curtilage around the home.
There is another thread, Florida Trespass Law with the law cited, interpreted, and with case law.

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,
commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.
(b) As used in this section, the term “unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.

[shcisamax]

Not if posters stick to the question by not adding personal opinions rather than facts.

Well, that might be true but responding by saying things like, "some that use the opportunity to act like a raving idiot." seems like an opinion versus a fact. Just sayin'

[DonH57]

This is not a close comparison, having a train go by and not ona your property is alot different;
When your a none golfer and own your own property no one tells you that you will have AHOLE golfers not respecting rules of the golf course and common sense to stay off peoples property.
I don think coming a couple feet onto someones property to retrieve a ball is the problem.
Its the AHOLE golfer that come in the property 25' and with his friend playing hide and go seek for there ball 10 times a day without even asking.
And then there are the ones that hit your house and don,t even ask if they did any damage just where is there 2.00 ball.
Come on folks who isn't using there common sense here.
we can beat it to death.

I see a comparison between the two. Sorry you don't. I didn't bring up golfers responsibilities. They do often walk away, or run.

[Chellybean]

It is not necessary to post no trespassing signs. The homeowner has rights of no trespass automatically to what is called the curtilage around the home.
There is another thread, Florida Trespass Law with the law cited, interpreted, and with case law.

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,
commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.
(b) As used in this section, the term “unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.

Finally someone that know the Statue thank you for this post.
If you don't understand the language it means you are trespassing period!
have a good day folks.
as i was writing this someone on the golf course walk right by a no trespassing sign ten feet in and retrieved his ball, i rest my point!
AHOLE golfers. l.o.l.

[TheVillageChicken]

It is not necessary to post no trespassing signs. The homeowner has rights of no trespass automatically to what is called the curtilage around the home.
There is another thread, Florida Trespass Law with the law cited, interpreted, and with case law.

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,
commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.
(b) As used in this section, the term “unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.

You are ignoring the part I have highlighted?

[kittygilchrist]

You are ignoring the part I have highlighted?

You are right. that particular quote is in reference to criminal intent.
I should have used this...you cannot substitute AND where the law says OR....but you knew that.
Here's the preceding section:
FL STATUTE
810.08 Trespass in structure or conveyance.—
(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

810.011 Definitions.—As used in this chapter:
(1) “Structure” means a building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof. However, during the time of a state of emergency declared by executive order or proclamation of the Governor under chapter 252 and within the area covered by such executive order or proclamation and for purposes of ss. 810.02 and 810.08 only, the term means a building of any kind or such portions or remnants thereof as exist at the original site, regardless of absence of a wall or roof.

[Chellybean]

You are ignoring the part I have highlighted?

read 1a is the key language;

[Chellybean]

It is not necessary to post no trespassing signs. The homeowner has rights of no trespass automatically to what is called the curtilage around the home.
There is another thread, Florida Trespass Law with the law cited, interpreted, and with case law.

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,
commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.
(b) As used in this section, the term “unenclosed curtilage” means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling.

1a is the key language;

[TheVillageChicken]

1a is the key language;

Can't wait to see your interpretation of sub paras 1. and 2. of your referenced paragraph.

[Chellybean]

some people can't read or interpret simple language, P.S. are you a golfer l.o.l.
have a nice day this is getting way to borrowing, you must be looking at you neighbors lanai; l.o.l.

[Polar Bear]

The only thing I've seen during my admittedly modest research is that it's not usually cut-and-dried. But a couple of opinions (which I happen to agree with) do seem to recur quite frequently...

1) In an average situation of a golfer accidentally doing relatively minor damage to a home with a stray shot, the homeowner would have a hard time getting the golfer to be held legally responsible, largely because the homeowner was aware of the possibility of such an occurrence before purchasing the home;

2) It would also be very difficult to find a golfer guilty of trespassing if he simply went a short distance onto somebody's property to retrieve a golf ball and immediately returned to the golf course.

[TOTV Team]

Comments cannot be directed at another user - site guidelines every user agrees to when registering for a user account.

[Chellybean]

The only thing I've seen during my admittedly modest research is that it's not usually cut-and-dried. But a couple of opinions (which I happen to agree with) do seem to recur quite frequently...

1) In an average situation of a golfer accidentally doing relatively minor damage to a home with a stray shot, the homeowner would have a hard time getting the golfer to be held legally responsible, largely because the homeowner was aware of the possibility of such an occurrence before purchasing the home;

NOT TRUE; No One makes you aware of bad behavior of Golfers and them not following the rules, this issue has been beaten to death on the village forum

2) It would also be very difficult to find a golfer guilty of trespassing if he simply went a short distance onto somebody's property to retrieve a golf ball and immediately returned to the golf course.

NOT TRUE; If the property is posted and Golfers still enter's (which some do) then i believe a judge would Find the perpetrator arrogant and knowingly trespassing.
Now the really question is, is it worth it and weather they get confronted by the home owner is the embarrassing part for them.
I caught a guy sending his 14 year old son to retrieve a ball and i heard him say "go get it before they see us hurry" Nice message they are sending there children not to respect others property.
Folks we can beat this to death.
If you can't afford the golf ball don,t play the sport period!

[bluedog103]

NOT TRUE; If the property is posted and Golfers still enter's (which some do) then i believe a judge would Find the perpetrator arrogant and knowingly trespassing.
Now the really question is, is it worth it and weather they get confronted by the home owner is the embarrassing part for them.
I caught a guy sending his 14 year old son to retrieve a ball and i heard him say "go get it before they see us hurry" Nice message they are sending there children not to respect others property.
Folks we can beat this to death.
If you can't afford the golf ball don,t play the sport period!
Not a villager with a 14 year old son. What course do you live on?

[Chellybean]

it was on a championship course in the new section on a rented cart, probably visiting grand parents with his dad.

[TheVillageChicken]

some people can't read or interpret simple language, P.S. are you a golfer l.o.l.
have a nice day this is getting way to borrowing, you must be looking at you neighbors lanai; l.o.l.

I can suggest a way for you to find out. How does a $500.00 Nassau sound to you?

[kittygilchrist]

It is not necessary to post property in TV to have homeowner rights against trespassers. A trespasser is someone who willingly comes on your property without an invitation (excluding contracted services, etc).

[Chellybean]

It is not necessary to post property in TV to have homeowner rights against trespassers. A trespasser is someone who willingly comes on your property without an invitation (excluding contracted services, etc).

finally someone that can read the Law thank you!

[Polar Bear]

I don't question the definition of trespassing.

But I also stand by my opinion that it would be difficult to have somebody convicted of trespassing if they simply encroached a few feet to retrieve a ball and immediately reentered the golf course.

[kittygilchrist]

I don't question the definition of trespassing.

But I also stand by my opinion that it would be difficult to have somebody convicted of trespassing if they simply encroached a few feet to retrieve a ball and immediately reentered the golf course.

Well, heck Polar Bear, that's exactly right. Only people with integrity respect others when they can get away with hit and run. I think you are saying it perfectly.

[Chellybean]

Well, heck Polar Bear, that's exactly right. Only people with integrity respect others when they can get away with hit and run. I think you are saying it perfectly.

I get your point Kittygilchrist.
No matter a few feet or 30 feet its trespassing polar bear.
It is like Kittygilchrist is saying if you put a little dent or a big dent you are still damaging someones property, weather or not you get caught is not integrity.
People aren't bothered by a couple of feet but the old saying goes, give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Now i have seen people with telescope ball retrievers and they come out 8 to 10 feet.
These people stay on the course and if they can retrieve there ball they get it, if they can't they leave it and never come on the property.
Now one gentleman couldn't retrieve his ball and headed toward his cart, I stopped him and said let me get that for you and thanked him for being a gentleman.
he wasn't sneaky and tried to come on the property and then run away like you have stated polar bear.
Are you starting to get the point.
The rules are not to come on private property or off the course.
Everyone seems to know that rule but feels it doesn't apply to them.

[Steve & Deanna]

I would advise to follow the rules of golf, use common sense (if you have some) and be courteous. Golf balls are short money. Consider it lost if it goes on someone's property.

[Polar Bear]

...he wasn't sneaky and tried to come on the property and then run away like you have stated polar bear...

...get away with hit and run...

Sneaky? Run away? Hit and run? Your words, not mine. I said nor meant nothing of the kind. I was referring to reasonable golfers using common sense to retrieve a ball, harming nothing and no one.

...you must be the one out of 100 Golfers that are Honorable...

99% of all golfers are dishonorable? You really meant to say that?!? I'll admit...I'm at a loss for words.