Golf ball dispute results in 5M verdict (overturned) (Boston: housing, selling)

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

You're making a lot of assumptions.

If the housing and the golf course are developed at the same time then typically there's some thought put into where the homes are placed. If the developer is greedy and just wanting to squeeze in as many lots as possible or if the housing or golf course were developed at different times then certainly it's a lot less likely that homes were placed in order to avoid being struck.

Also, if you've ever played golf then you'll know that some people are just BAD at it and there's really no predicting where a ball they hit will go. Clearly though when you look at a golf hole, there are places around it where if you built a house you'd be more or less likely to be pelted by golf balls.



I thought it was totally ridiculous. I could see if the town forced the course to put up a net to protect the house given the number of balls that strike it. I could even see if the courts awarded the homeowner some money to offset the damage done to the house and even some extra for punitive purposes. However, to give these people multiple millions of dollars is just nonsense.

I hope they don't get millions.

[johngolf]

I was a member of a private golf club that had townhouses around it, where I lived. The club sold itself (they were heavy in debt) to a housing developer with the agreement the home owners association (HOA) would lease the golf course back to the club for $1 per year on a 99 year lease. Thus the HOA actually owned the golf course but the membership controlled the golf course.

One part of the agreement was the HOA would pay for any damage done by errant golf balls. Basically the damage was broken glass. Windows, patio doors, etc. which there was a lot of them broken.

I was a member of another golf club that was built after there were some homes already in place. Some neighbors sued the club. The court ordered the club to redesign the hole and install some netting.

My personal opinion is who/what came first should not be blamed.

[msRB311]

It's likely that they house was there first before the golf course but the suing owners just bought the house in 2017.

[hawk55732]

Originally Posted by msRB311

It's likely that they house was there first before the golf course but the suing owners just bought the house in 2017.

From what I have read about the case the gulf course was there first.

[johngolf]

Originally Posted by hawk55732

From what I have read about the case the gulf course was there first.

As I understand it, the course was built in 2001 and the house was built in 2014.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by johngolf

That is how I understand it. The course was built in 2001. I believe the couple bought the house new in 2017 from the developer.

And the golf course has two easements in place with property owners allowing for golfers to retrieve balls from unimproved parts of their property (searching the woods for their lost Pro V1) and this easement;

another that allows for “reasonable operation of a golf course.”

The latter provision covers “the flight of errant balls” onto neighboring properties, the SJC concluded.

“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.”

Judge sounds like a golfer

I'd have to see the golf course layout and how the property sits. I've played on certain courses where there is signage asking folks to club down on certain holes due to various features to avoid. Tewksbury Country Club's 9th hole is a good example as it's only ~100 years from tee box to pin and 40 yards beyond that is typically where they hold outdoor weddings. They usually put out a sign asking folks to club down or lay up. Golf course could install high netting poles like you see at driving ranges. If this is a dogleg, you have to imagine a ball is on the downward path of flight, so netting poles might not even need to be that high. I'd have to see this course and it's layout however to really understand what the issue is.

But the Golf course was there first. One could argue that the developer could be sued for trying to maximize profits and placing a house in a dangerous area, rather than redesign that part of their development to maybe avoid putting a home in the line of fire?



As for causing distress, i can see it. Only 9-13 balls hit the house in a year after some mitigation methods were put in place. Doesn't seem like much, but as a parent my kids frequently run and play in the yard unsupervised. I would be stressed wondering if they were going to get hit by a golf ball randomly I've been hit by a ball (in the back) and it hurts!!

Of course, i wouldn't have bought a home next to a gold course at the apex of a dogleg.

[BostonMike7]

I think the address is 294 country club way, kingston. probably one of those groups of houses. If you look at the arial, the hole plays east to west. I bet golfers are getting aggressive and hugging the dogleg tight, and just hooking left into the homes. TBH, i would expect to see this a bit on that hole.


But looking around the course, there's a lot of homes that I bet see balls. Look at 161 Country Club way. At the end of a 541 par 5 where the green fades left. I know that's a stretch to even hit that deep for most golfers on their 2nd swing, but those homes are also in the line of fire if someone gets aggressive with their pitching wedge on the 3rd shot.


Here's the course layout
https://golftraxx.com/full-layout?co...64&static=true

[CaseyB]

My husband mentioned those easements to me. He writes them for any golf course where he is involved in the residential development part. He said they are pretty much standard, all the property deeds have them.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by msRB311

It's likely that they house was there first before the golf course but the suing owners just bought the house in 2017.

It's usually the other way around. It takes quite a bit of land to build a golf course. In my experience, the course usually is there first and then the houses show up. Sometimes, the course and the houses are developed at the same time.

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

I think the address is 294 country club way, kingston. probably one of those groups of houses. If you look at the arial, the hole plays east to west. I bet golfers are getting aggressive and hugging the dogleg tight, and just hooking left into the homes. TBH, i would expect to see this a bit on that hole.


But looking around the course, there's a lot of homes that I bet see balls. Look at 161 Country Club way. At the end of a 541 par 5 where the green fades left. I know that's a stretch to even hit that deep for most golfers on their 2nd swing, but those homes are also in the line of fire if someone gets aggressive with their pitching wedge on the 3rd shot.


Here's the course layout
https://golftraxx.com/full-layout?co...64&static=true

I think you mean 168 Country Club Way but regardless looking at an aerial view of the course there definitely a number of clusters of homes which are pretty close to the course. The homes around 168 are particularly close to the green and I'm surprised they don't get hit by more balls than the house that's suing the club. If 294 is the correct address for the lawsuit house that's set much further back from the course and has more trees in between as well. I could see some people trying to cut the corner of the hole and attempting to send the ball over the house's yard though.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

I could see some people trying to cut the corner of the hole and attempting to send the ball over the house's yard though.

Definitely, although I have played a few courses where they ask you to not cut the corner and play the course with 2 shots rather than trying for the green. But even I would set up to hug the left hand side and set it down between the two sand traps. If i muff it, i could definitely see myself hooking into those houses.

But I see issues with other houses as well.

- Green area on #2
- Teeing off on #4
- Teeing off on #10
- Teeing off on #11
- #15 which is the topic of this thread
-#16 could be an issue for that one house beyond the green

What confuses me is that the course, and the development are unrelated but the developer literally built all the homes right up against the course as if it was a selling point?