[RichieLion]

Number 1: There's been discussion among my friends and I about the legal responsibilities of the golfer who hit an errant golf ball striking private property built specifically for the "golf course view".

This is assuming the golfer is not intentionally acting reckless.

It seems to be the opinion that's it's not the golfer's responsibility to assume liability for any damage done, and that the homeowner in buying a home on the course legally must anticipate the possible damage and assume the liability of a ball hitting their home during normal play. Is this true?

Number 2: What about a ball hitting a car on a road adjacent to the course resulting in damage and/or injury? Where's the liability?

[Hunt Law Firm]

The question that has been asked raises interesting legal and moral issues and has generated a nice debate. Obviously, the correct answer to any legal question is based upon the particular facts and circumstances of that case and cannot be obtained without a thorough investigation and legal analysis. From a legal standpoint, there is obviously a huge difference between an intentional act and a negligent act.

Assuming that there was actually an errant golf shot and not an intentional act, the first place that I would look would be the development’s restrictive covenants. Typically, any deed restricted community that has homes on a golf course would have a section in their restrictions (or some other document that is signed at closing) which provides that the homeowner assumes the risk of their home being damaged by golf balls. These restrictions generally also sometimes contain language wherein the homeowner waives their rights to make any claim against the developer, course designer, builder, etc. and agrees to hold them harmless in the event a lawsuit is filed.

In the event, there are no so restrictions in your particular development (which is highly unlikely), the homeowner would have a cause of action for negligence. However, an affirmative defense to this cause of action would be assumption of risk. (ie) in buying a house on a golf course, the homeowner assumed the risk that his house would be damaged by golf balls. Another far reaching cause of action would be a suit against the golf course designer/developer for a negligent design. Once again an affirmative defense to this cause of action would be assumption of risk. It would be up to the finder of fact to determine whether they found any merit to these causes of actions or affirmative defenses based upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

From a legal standpoint, you are going to be hard pressed to find a reported case addressing the property damage issue. (However, you may have better luck finding one where a person on the golf course was injured as a result of an errant golf shot because the damages are typically larger). The main reason there is probably not a reported case on the damages issues is that even if the golfer would be responsible for the damage, it is generally not cost effective to file a lawsuit wherein you would be seeking $500 of damages when the fee to file such a claim in small claims court would be $175.00. Additionally, even if the small claims suit were to be filed, the loser would have to appeal the decision to the Circuit Court. Circuit Court opinions are generally not published, which makes it next to impossible to research the rulings unless you are familiar with the name of the case. (Generally speaking only District Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Opinions are published.) Once the Circuit Court has ruled, your next appeal would be to the District Court of Appeal. The District Court of Appeal would act in a capacity similar to the Florida Supreme Court and would have discretion as to whether they were willing to take on this case. In short, unless a case makes it to the District Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, there will generally be no written opinion.