[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by lesbunning

Its not a question of who was there first. The question is whether you can use your land in a manner that creates a nuisance for a neighbouring property owner. Usually the liability rests with the golf course owner but in many cases the golf course is built first and the golf course owner then sells lots to homebuilders. There is usually a covenant in the sale of the lots that prevents the golf course owner being liable for damages by errant golf balls.

[Dusty_Star]

Originally Posted by blueash

I HATE it when posters completely fail to tell the correct story.
The verdict was overturned on appeal and what everyone here is saying applied.


“Errant golf balls are to golf what foul balls and errors are to baseball. They are a natural part of the game,” Kafker wrote. “They demonstrate the difficulty and challenge of the sport even for the very best players. Despite practice, instruction, technological improvements, and even good golf course design and operation—disputed in the instant case—golf shots go awry, as a matter of course.”



Not sure if matter of "course" was meant as a pun

Pretty sure Justice Kafker was indeed making a pun.

[Robbb]

Originally Posted by zummy

Our bedroom window was broken by an errant golf ball

Your golf course facing home probably tripled in value over the past year, I would think that has to balance the negatives of living on a course a bit.