[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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]

Originally Posted by mikeod

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]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by DonH57

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]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

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.