what can be claimed as damages?

[fedupinflorida]

What is the name of your state? florida - martin county

A guy playing golf on the course next to my house hit his golfball thru my window. I was near the window and of course was totally unprepared to be showered with glass - was so stunned that I threw up - He refused to give me his name, so I called the Sheriff- who came. Turns out the deputy knew him. He told the guy and me that he had no responsibility for the damage- the police report says the guy admitted breaking the window. I had to use a vacation day to get it repaired. I've written to the guy twice and phoned him once. He won't pay and does not think he's responsible.

If I take him to small claims court, can I sue to recover the cost of the window repair, the value of my vacation time used, my court costs? Can I claim a personal injury for the shock of being hit by the glass, even though it didn't cut me?

Thank you

 

[JETX]

If I take him to small claims court, can I sue to recover the cost of the window repair, the value of my vacation time used, my court costs?

Of course you can sue him for anything you want. After all, anyone can sue almost anyone else over almost anything. However, unless you can prove that the golfer was purposely aiming for your house (negligent or malice), you have NO claim. The hazard of a golf ball breaking a window is something YOU assume when you chose to live next to a golf course.

Can I claim a personal injury for the shock of being hit by the glass, even though it didn't cut me?

Yep. Maybe you can get an 'imaginary' judgment to go with that imaginary claim!!

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: If I take him to small claims court, can I sue to recover the cost of the window repair, the value of my vacation time used, my court costs?

A: Yes, no, and if you win, he will have to pay the court costs.


Q: Can I claim a personal injury for the shock of being hit by the glass, even though it didn't cut me?

A: No, there were no damages.


If you live on a golf course, you can expect golf balls. So, you will not win the case and the golfer is not liable.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Unless there is something wrong with the design of the golf course, then by moving into a house near a golf course, you "assumed the risk". One way to stop this in the future is to set up netting in your yard. Otherwise, it's bound to happen again and again and again - - all without recourse.

IAAL

 

[fedupinflorida]

what am I missing?

florida

Since when does simply being aware of a risk mean that you've assumed it?

Every child knows that when they hit a baseball and it goes through someone's window, that they did something wrong.

And my insurance carrier tells me that if I hit a golf ball through someone else's window, that my homeowners' liability policy will cover it since I'd be liable.

When people drive on the road, they know there's a risk of getting hit- but that doesn't mean that someone who hits them thru their own actions is off the hook.

A skier who crashes into someone on a ski slope is liable for hurting them.

If a golfer hits a ball into the party in front of him and hurts them, he is liable.

Why would he not be liable for hitting the ball off the course and into my house?

By your reasoning, if a car drives into my front door, then I took the risk by having a house next to a street and the driver would be off the hook.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Okay, you're right.

If you think, for one minute, that I'm going to waste my time discussing law with some emotionally imbalanced idiot (who comes up with ridiculous scenarios), then you'll be waiting a long time.

IAAL

 

[fedupinflorida]

interesting choice of words.......I'm "emotionally imbalanced" because I question your logic? and I'm an "idiot" because I pointed out the flaws therein?

 

[JETX]

Since when does simply being aware of a risk mean that you've assumed it?

Pretty much since the beginning of 'common law'.

Every child knows that when they hit a baseball and it goes through someone's window, that they did something wrong.

Not when the person who owns the window builds their house in the middle of the ballpark.

And my insurance carrier tells me that if I hit a golf ball through someone else's window, that my homeowners' liability policy will cover it since I'd be liable.

Then hope your insurance carrier is the judge when your case comes up.

When people drive on the road, they know there's a risk of getting hit- but that doesn't mean that someone who hits them thru their own actions is off the hook.

Can you find the 'clue' in your post?? Hint: THROUGH THEIR OWN ACTIONS!!

A skier who crashes into someone on a ski slope is liable for hurting them.
If a golfer hits a ball into the party in front of him and hurts them, he is liable.

Who says??

Why would he not be liable for hitting the ball off the course and into my house?
By your reasoning, if a car drives into my front door, then I took the risk by having a house next to a street and the driver would be off the hook.

Maybe you can claim a handicap.

 

[seniorjudge]

Albert was playing golf when his partner's hooked shot ricocheted off of a wooden yardage marker and struck him in the eye. Albert sued the golf course for negligence, but a state appellate court dismissed his claim. The court found that golf is an active sport, that Albert was injured because he subjected himself to an inherent risk in golf, and that the golf course had not increased the risks inherent in playing a round of golf.

Read the whole article:

http://www.floridalegalanswers.com/report/assumption.html

 

[fedupinflorida]

The fundamental difference between Albert's case and mine is in the action.

Albert assumed the risk of being injured during his participation in a golf game. He actively assumed the risk when he played.

I did not assume any risk by simply existing near a golf course. Just as a person living in a house next to an airport does not accept and assume the risk of injury from a plane which crashes.

The guy who played golf, assumed the risk that he would cause injury by mis-hitting the ball and going off the course.

Trespass is a tort where the intention to trespass is not the issue - the conduct which must be intentional was the action of hitting the golf ball. The fact that the results of his intentional conduct were different than he expected, is his issue. It does not relieve him of liability.

See Restatement 2d of Torts, §165

"The fact that he has wrongfully intruded, even though the wrong is one of negligence rather than intention, makes the actor liable for any such harm done to the possessor of land while the actor is there. In short, it is not essential that the harm caused to the possessor of the land was reasonably to be expected by the actor, or that it was reasonably to be expected as a result of a trespass on the land. It is sufficient that there is an intrusion on another's land caused either recklessly, negligently, or as a result of an abnormally hazardous undertaking, and that as a legal consequence of such intrusion, harm of the required sort has come about, however antecedently improbable."

 

[JETX]

The fundamental difference between Albert's case and mine is in the action.

Who cares?? The bottom line is... several legally experienced persons have told you the truth. It is now up to you to either accept it... or reject it.
Case closed.

 

[seniorjudge]

Who cares?? The bottom line is... several legally experienced persons have told you the truth. It is now up to you to either accept it... or reject it.
Case closed.

And dismissed with prejudice to boot!