Golfer breaks window

[kdmj4]

What is the name of your state? Washington
In March of this year my husband broke a window while golfing. He admitted to breaking the window, he gave the course attendant his name and number. We received a cerified letter today with a proposed bill for $1074. My question is, what are the laws in Washington state for homeowners living on a golf course? and the responsibility of the golfer. My thought is that the cost should be divided between the homeowner and my husband.

Thank you.

[stephenk]

you are wrong. hubby hit the ball that broke the window. he is 100% responsible for the cost. homeowner near the golf course is not negligent.

[john123456]

Originally Posted by stephenk

you are wrong. hubby hit the ball that broke the window. he is 100% responsible for the cost. homeowner near the golf course is not negligent.

Stephen:

Didn't the homeowner assume the risk that a golf ball might break his window when he elected to purchase a home on the golf course?

[shortbus]

It would be ethical of your husband to pay some portion of the bill.

But legally he'd make a good case that the person who buys a home on a golf course assumes the risk of golf ball collisions (and insures himself accordingly).

[stephenk]

First, whether the homeowner is insured or not insured is not relevant to the matter. It is a subject that would never be allowed in front of the court or a jury.

Second, there is no "assumption of the risk" in owning a home on a golf course that gets your husband off the hook entirely or even some proportionate amount. Assumption of the risk applies to an activity such as skiing, skydiving, football, motorcross, etc. the person who is involved in the activity assumes the risk of injury by the nature of their activity and therefore cannot seek damages from say the ski resort, football field owner, etc.

Owning a home on a golf course is not assuming the risk of damage that gets your hubby off the hook. It just means the homeowner risks damage to his property from errant golf balls. Your hubby was kind enough to leave his name and number. Most golfers just leave.

[Pork Chop]

I am an avid golfer and have seen this very topic many times. Some courts have ruled that the golfer is not liable unless he/she is negligent, others have said that the golfer is 100% liable. I broke a tail light on a Lexus and my homeowners (USAA, Arkansas) policy paid ($ 150.00). I also live on a private golf course at Arkansas and try to keep current on laws that may affect me. I also own a house on a private golf course in Florida. The Florida course allows golfers to contribute $ 10.00 yearly to a "broken window" fund and that eliminates that problem. If you have a homeowners policy you may be covered, good luck.

[john123456]

Originally Posted by stephenk

First, whether the homeowner is insured or not insured is not relevant to the matter. It is a subject that would never be allowed in front of the court or a jury.

Second, there is no "assumption of the risk" in owning a home on a golf course that gets your husband off the hook entirely or even some proportionate amount. Assumption of the risk applies to an activity such as skiing, skydiving, football, motorcross, etc. the person who is involved in the activity assumes the risk of injury by the nature of their activity and therefore cannot seek damages from say the ski resort, football field owner, etc.

Owning a home on a golf course is not assuming the risk of damage that gets your hubby off the hook. It just means the homeowner risks damage to his property from errant golf balls. Your hubby was kind enough to leave his name and number. Most golfers just leave.

Stephen:

Please read this thread:
[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=231819[/url]

[stephenk]

Their premise is faulty. There is no case law supporting the argument that living on a golf course or near a golf course results in a homeowner "assuming the risk" of their home being damaged by the negligence of a golfter to the extent the negligent golfer has no liability for the damage they cause.

The case of the golfer hit in the eye by the other golfer is fact specific to the golf course not being liable. No mention is made regarding the fault of the golfer who hit the ball.

To the orginal poster, present the repair bill to your homeowner's insurance and they will cover it.

[john123456]

Originally Posted by stephenk

Their premise is faulty. There is no case law supporting the argument that living on a golf course or near a golf course results in a homeowner "assuming the risk" of their home being damaged by the negligence of a golfter to the extent the negligent golfer has no liability for the damage they cause.

The case of the golfer hit in the eye by the other golfer is fact specific to the golf course not being liable. No mention is made regarding the fault of the golfer who hit the ball.

To the orginal poster, present the repair bill to your homeowner's insurance and they will cover it.

Stephen:

Interesting, thanks for your time.

[OrioleFan443]

Stephen said:

Didn't the homeowner assume the risk that a golf ball might break his window when he elected to purchase a home on the golf course?

I would offer this counter. Is a person standing near a curb and struck by an automobile liable since they assumed the risk by standing close to traffic? Same difference hmmmmmmm.....

[john123456]

Originally Posted by OrioleFan443

Stephen said:

Didn't the homeowner assume the risk that a golf ball might break his window when he elected to purchase a home on the golf course?

I would offer this counter. Is a person standing near a curb and struck by an automobile liable since they assumed the risk by standing close to traffic? Same difference hmmmmmmm.....

I did find one California Appellate case, however unpublished. In Hernandez v. Ong (February 26, 2002), 4th Appellate Dist., Div. One, No. D038200, LEXIS 3633, the court held that homeowners residing next to golf courses were sufficiently warned of the inherent risks of the sport of golf. Specifically, the court held:

"[t]the assumption of risk doctrine as applied to spectators at a sporting event also applies to those who occupy houses adjacent to existing golf courses...Although not a spectator of the golf being played, one who moves into a house that is adjacent to an existing golf course chooses, as a spectator does, to participate in the benefits of the golf courses' pastoral setting and accepts the inherent dangers of such participation. So long as the course has been designed and maintained as a reasonably safe golf course consistent with the risks inherent in the sport, the course will have no liability to an adjacent homeowner."

[divgradcurl]

Originally Posted by john123456

I did find one California Appellate case, however unpublished. In Hernandez v. Ong (February 26, 2002), 4th Appellate Dist., Div. One, No. D038200, LEXIS 3633, the court held that homeowners residing next to golf courses were sufficiently warned of the inherent risks of the sport of golf. Specifically, the court held:

"[t]the assumption of risk doctrine as applied to spectators at a sporting event also applies to those who occupy houses adjacent to existing golf courses...Although not a spectator of the golf being played, one who moves into a house that is adjacent to an existing golf course chooses, as a spectator does, to participate in the benefits of the golf courses' pastoral setting and accepts the inherent dangers of such participation. So long as the course has been designed and maintained as a reasonably safe golf course consistent with the risks inherent in the sport, the course will have no liability to an adjacent homeowner."

But that case doesn't change anything in this situation. The situation here is the liability of the golfer who hit the ball, not the golf course itself. Had the golfer not stepped forward, or otherwise not been identified, then the homeowner would have no recourse against the golf course itself, as in the case cited above -- but since the homeowner knows who personally was negligent, the homeowner can certainly seek compensation from the negligent party.

[john123456]

Originally Posted by divgradcurl

But that case doesn't change anything in this situation. The situation here is the liability of the golfer who hit the ball, not the golf course itself. Had the golfer not stepped forward, or otherwise not been identified, then the homeowner would have no recourse against the golf course itself, as in the case cited above -- but since the homeowner knows who personally was negligent, the homeowner can certainly seek compensation from the negligent party.

Absolutely.

[panzertanker]

Originally Posted by stephenk

To the orginal poster, present the repair bill to your homeowner's insurance and they will cover it.

You have me confused:
The golfer should present this to his homeowner's insurance?
Or the owner?
Then if the owner did, his insurance co. would go after golfer, correct?

[stephenk]

the golfer should notify his homeowner's insurance of the window he broke.