Golf Course Liability

[Zgifford]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

"Golf Course A" is built in 1964. In 1974 Claimant purchases home adjacent to said course. Home is protected by old growth Eucalyptus. Over the years several hundred golf balls have landed on or around the claimant's property. In 2003 the claimant asked the course to errect netting or complete some sort of mitigating action. In 2004 the claimant is hit on the head by a golf ball and sustains a significant injury. The golf course has not altered their layout in the 30+ years that the claimant has resided there. My understanding is that there would be no liability on the course? Is this correct?

 

[absconder]

If you go to a baseball game and get hit in the head with a baseball is the baseball team liable? NO.

 

[jity]

If you go to a baseball game and get hit in the head with a baseball is the baseball team liable? NO.

I think your wrong here, while the baseball team would probably not be liable, the owner of the park could be if factors existed. I have seen a couple of successfully filed lawsuits in this area. I think he has a claim.

 

[john123456]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

"Golf Course A" is built in 1964. In 1974 Claimant purchases home adjacent to said course. Home is protected by old growth Eucalyptus. Over the years several hundred golf balls have landed on or around the claimant's property. In 2003 the claimant asked the course to errect netting or complete some sort of mitigating action. In 2004 the claimant is hit on the head by a golf ball and sustains a significant injury. The golf course has not altered their layout in the 30+ years that the claimant has resided there. My understanding is that there would be no liability on the course? Is this correct?

You have no claim. You assumed the risk when you purchased the home. Is this homework?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

"Golf Course A" is built in 1964. In 1974 Claimant purchases home adjacent to said course. Home is protected by old growth Eucalyptus. Over the years several hundred golf balls have landed on or around the claimant's property. In 2003 the claimant asked the course to errect netting or complete some sort of mitigating action. In 2004 the claimant is hit on the head by a golf ball and sustains a significant injury. The golf course has not altered their layout in the 30+ years that the claimant has resided there. My understanding is that there would be no liability on the course? Is this correct?

My response:

Apparently, you're at the part of your torts class where you're about to learn, or are in the process of learning, "Primary" and "Secondary" assumption of the risk.

Start by reading Knight vs. Jewett 3 Cal.4th 296, and it's progeny.

IAAL