$5 Million for Cutting Dogleg

[Nard_S]

Thought this is funny. Judge awarded huge payday for damages to house on MA golf course. Bulk of it is for ''suffering''. Course is appealing. 
 

 

Massachusetts family awarded $5M for golf ball damage to home (yahoo.com)

[596]

That article states that the plaintiff did not ask for any amount other than the physical damages.  The jury awarded that amount on their own.  

 

Apparently the course owner did nothing for years to help the home owner.  

 

Is 5m stupid for the damages, yes.  Did the course owner make mistakes, yes.

[dugue4]

Course owner could have and probably should have done something, but I think this is 100% on the homeowner.  The course was there when they bought the house and presumably was not altered to make it more likely the house would be struck.  Wonder how many giant driving range nets you could buy with $5 million?

[Warrior42111]

I'd think the appeal would knock down that payment or rule in favor of the course IMO.

 

Course and hole design was there before the houses. 

 

Also, read some local articles, and talked to some friends (grew up in MA) there's rumors the course was to put up driving range nets or something to protect the house but it would destroy the views was refused. Again that's speculation as it's still in the appeal stage.

[lefthack]

Buy a house on a golf course, get hit with balls. Shocking. But seriously, they changed the hole and solved the problem. Too bad it took a $5m bill to make them do it. 🤣

[KNOWMOREDOUBLES]

If the course was there before the house was built, I'm shocked they were awarded anything.

[Hawkeye77]

I read a backstory on it reported in Golfweek.  Pretty interesting.  

 

Apparently turned on specifics of Massachusetts law, so no real sky is falling stuff should come out of it, except from media that won't bother to report it properly.  Here's a bit:

 

“In Massachusetts, under the current law, to the extent that the ordinary use of a golf course requires land beyond the course boundaries to accommodate the travel of errant shots, it is incumbent on the golf course to acquire either the fee in the additional land itself, or the right to use the additional land for that purpose. Principle applies regardless of whether the course or home existed first.”

 

Here, the course was second, not first, and the course owner/developer neglected to do what was necessary in the setup of the development to secure whatever rights would have protected him, and even when the house was under construction it was pelted and assurances were given, etc. that proved to be useless.

 

More an example about how someone can mismanage setting up a golf course development and then totally mismanage a situation that needed taken care of with proper and swift action.

 

The jury was instructed on the damages, the fact the plaintiff didn't specify an amount probably makes it even more likely on appeal the appellate court will leave the verdict alone, the bar to overcome to have the damages declared excessive is very high and there is a lot of deference to the jury verdict.

 

Here's the article:  https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/04/27/golf-lawsuit-5-million-after-house-pelted-by-golf-balls/

[dcmidnight]

32 minutes ago, dugue4 said:

I think this is 100% on the homeowner.  The course was there when they bought the house

 

Actually this statement is 100% not true.

[dcmidnight]

I'd really be interested in seeing the elevation/site plan from this development. If I read the article correctly, even if they built an 80 foot high net, the balls could still "easily" hit the house from the tee? That's...quite a drop if an 8 story net wouldn't protect you.

 

Also pretty clear the course owner had zero interest in helping in this case whatsoever.

 

 

[PJE]

An illustration of everything that is wrong with the US today; self interest run amok:

• Idiots who buy a house on a golf course in a foreseeably poor location but then complain about it;
• Golfers intentionally taking shots which are foreseeably hazardous to these homeowners;
• Golf course management apparently does nothing, i.e., no in course OB, signage, etc.;
• Lawyers looking for a buck;
• Juries which think money is just a number and who award an exorbitant amount. 

But out of all the above, the homeowners are the most culpable for their misfortune. Unfortunately, a jury disagrees with my opinion. 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

20 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I read a backstory on it reported in Golfweek.  Pretty interesting.  

 

Apparently turned on specifics of Massachusetts law, so no real sky is falling stuff should come out of it, except from media that won't bother to report it properly.  Here's a bit:

 

“In Massachusetts, under the current law, to the extent that the ordinary use of a golf course requires land beyond the course boundaries to accommodate the travel of errant shots, it is incumbent on the golf course to acquire either the fee in the additional land itself, or the right to use the additional land for that purpose. Principle applies regardless of whether the course or home existed first.”

 

Here, the course was second, not first, and the course owner/developer neglected to do what was necessary in the setup of the development to secure whatever rights would have protected him, and even when the house was under construction it was pelted and assurances were given, etc. that proved to be useless.

 

More an example about how someone can mismanage setting up a golf course development and then totally mismanage a situation that needed taken care of with proper and swift action.

 

The jury was instructed on the damages, the fact the plaintiff didn't specify an amount probably makes it even more likely on appeal the appellate court will leave the verdict alone, the bar to overcome to have the damages declared excessive is very high and there is a lot of deference to the jury verdict.

 

Here's the article:  https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/04/27/golf-lawsuit-5-million-after-house-pelted-by-golf-balls/

Sounds like the course owner is an A Hole and got what they deserved.  

The course owner refused to consent to either (nets) and continued to ignore them.

 

 “The (15th) hole was designed for a straight tee ball with a generous fairway straight in front of the tee areas. In actuality, the course’s own website provided a description of the hole that encouraged players to try and cut the corner over a sand trap and reach another area which is significantly closer to the Tenczar home and placed all of it in play from errant balls.

[KNOWMOREDOUBLES]

If the course was already there, then yes the golf course owner is an a-hole and got what he deserved.

[MtlJeff]

1 hour ago, PJE said:

An illustration of everything that is wrong with the US today; self interest run amok:

• Idiots who buy a house on a golf course in a foreseeably poor location but then complain about it;
• Golfers intentionally taking shots which are foreseeably hazardous to these homeowners;
• Golf course management apparently does nothing, i.e., no in course OB, signage, etc.;
• Lawyers looking for a buck;
• Juries which think money is just a number and who award an exorbitant amount. 

But out of all the above, the homeowners are the most culpable for their misfortune. Unfortunately, a jury disagrees with my opinion. 

 

Editing my answer due to my misunderstanding of the info

 

You have to read the article in USA today. It seems that while the course WAS built prior to them owning their house (2001 ~ for the course, and they bought their home in 2017)....The potential for damage was severely downplayed by the builders (buyers were told the house being hit had only happened once due to negligence)

 

Also the course apparently encouraged golfers to try and cut the corner which likely resulted in a lot of the damages.

 

Also the guy who owns the course seems to own the housing developments.

 

Just seems a little weird. Not everyone who buys a house near a course knows and understands golf. If there's records of developers/agents telling them damage from balls was incredibly rare and then their house gets treated like WW2 London----i do actually feel quite a bit of sympathy

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by MtlJeff

[smashdn]

You'd need to really overcook your hook to get into that house if it is the one I am looking at on google maps.  And I think it is based upon the picture of the folks on their porch.

 

Even if you do as the yardage book or hole description says and play over that bunker, you are at most on the inner edge of the cart path.  Moving the most back tee box closer to the property line and closer to the trees I would think would have greatly reduced if not wholly eliminated the issue.

 

I will try to get a snip of the hole.

[Rory4Pres]

If this stands, expect many more law suits by homeowners every time a golf ball flies into their property.  Also expect a huge blow for the golf industry since selling homes around a golf course is the number 1 way to finance a golf course these days.

[caniac6]

I told my wife that buying on a golf course was a good investment!

[Rory4Pres]

I'm just thinking ahead... family buys house on golf course.  Sues course for getting hit by errant tee shots.  Wins lawsuit, puts golf course out of business.  Course closes and turns into apartment complexes.  Now every house in the neighborhood has decreased home values, no view or privacy, major increase in traffic and increase in crime.  So 1 family wins at the expenses of all the other home owners and golfers of that club.  (this may not happen with this course but it'd be very likely if this becomes a trend).

Edited April 27, 2022 by Rory4Pres

[MtlJeff]

9 minutes ago, Rory4Pres said:

If this stands, expect many more law suits by homeowners every time a golf ball flies into their property.  Also expect a huge blow for the golf industry since selling homes around a golf course is the number 1 way to finance a golf course these days.

 

There's several houses on our golf course, on one of the 9's and you're correct this helped finance. There's a few that have been hit with balls for sure.

 

I have never seen anything like what is described here though (full siding replacement and like 20+ windows). That is thousands and thousands of dollars of repairs.

 

I think it probably passed the threshold of what can reasonably be expected. You also have to factor in most people if it's rare, would rather just pay to replace the window then incur legal expenses for years

[smashdn]

https://www.wcvb.com/article/kingston-massachusetts-5-million-golf-ball-damage-home/39831073

 

That article has an aerial of the house.  I based what I circled in the attached on the driveway shape.  The neighbors keeping the trees cut short might be what tempted people to cut that corner.  Maybe the farthest back tees aren't the issue?

 

That CW dogleg file is a local course with a similar hole.  There is no net on that particular hole but there is another hole with a more pronounced (close to 90*) dogleg that has one.  Also trees planted right up against the left hand side of the box.  Of course, you still tee your ball on the far right side in the markers and as deep as you can to attempt to lift a ball over the net and cut as much of the corner as you can.  That's golf.

 

Last thing, if you read much from what the archies put out (Doak and Forrest Richardson I know have spoken on this) you have to create a certain width playing corridor for insurance reasons.  A single hole is not the best use of the available space as two holes playing alongside or in opposite directions side by side can share that space in the middle.  basically if the corridor needs to be 100 yards either side of the centerline for a single hole and is ultimately 200 yards wide, two holes side by side need only be 300-350 yards wide.  In a housing development course you eat up less of your real estate with the actual course that way.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by smashdn

[aenemated]

I shanked one off 8 tee into Sheldon Adelson's backyard water park once. 

 

He's dead though. And now that I think of it, I don't believe I've ever seen any human activity at that crib. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Rory4Pres]

47 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

There's several houses on our golf course, on one of the 9's and you're correct this helped finance. There's a few that have been hit with balls for sure.

 

I have never seen anything like what is described here though (full siding replacement and like 20+ windows). That is thousands and thousands of dollars of repairs.

 

I think it probably passed the threshold of what can reasonably be expected. You also have to factor in most people if it's rare, would rather just pay to replace the window then incur legal expenses for years

Ya, that's a lot of windows.  I'm surprised it didn't fall on the members hands who hit the shots at some point (to cover the repairs).  

 

That being said, any house slightly left or right of the landing spot off the tee is going to have issues.

 

I see both sides of this argument.  Makes me almost wonder if members were carelessly hitting hooks on that tee shot (almost on purpose since I'm guessing most members knew about the feud going on with that house).  Generally speaking, most golfers don't want a hole changed because a home owner (who moved in after the course was built) is unhappy.    

 

 

[Danielson]

Looking at the aerial it looks like the greens driveable (or close to it) if you take a line directly at their house. The trees are super thinned out, most of what's on google maps appears to just be shadows. I don't see why the course didn't just move the teebox after the first few complaints, seems like an easy fix compared to an expensive legal battle. Living on a course you have to accept errant shots winding up in your yard once in a while, but having every long hitter aim at you seems excessive.

[dodint]

3 hours ago, PJE said:

An illustration of everything that is wrong with the US today; self interest run amok:

• Lawyers looking for a buck; 

 

Why else would they practice? Do you work in your field for free? It's easy to have this kind of opinion, right up until you've been marginalized and need assistance. 

 

The complaint (written by the lawyers) sought actual damages; they were as surprised as anyone that the jury awarded the $3.5m and statutory interest bumped it up to $4.9m. 

 

[MtlJeff]

1 hour ago, Rory4Pres said:

Ya, that's a lot of windows.  I'm surprised it didn't fall on the members hands who hit the shots at some point (to cover the repairs).  

 

That being said, any house slightly left or right of the landing spot off the tee is going to have issues.

 

I see both sides of this argument.  Makes me almost wonder if members were carelessly hitting hooks on that tee shot (almost on purpose since I'm guessing most members knew about the feud going on with that house).  Generally speaking, most golfers don't want a hole changed because a home owner (who moved in after the course was built) is unhappy.    

 

 

 

Generally i'm on the side of "if you buy a house on a course, you just have to accept this" so i'm not trying to discount that side of the argument. I understand

 

I think most times when something goes to court, there are reasonable expectations that normal people on a jury see as being excessive or acceptable. If someone was suing because a ball broke a window....it would be like, maybe deal with it. But a house getting crushed over and over i see a jury siding with the home owner, as it seems like past the point of reason and into negligence territory

 

It's like with injury law (at least here). I believe for example that some activities it's expected you are signing away some liability in terms of getting hurt etc....But avoiding serious injury is seen as a basic human right that cannot be signed away.

 

I kind of see it like that. The right to buying a house that isn't bombarded over and over with golf balls seems like a reasonable one

[NJBigFish22]

Moving the tee box or planting mature trees that eliminates the option of cutting the corner seems like it would have been cheaper.  

[Rory4Pres]

13 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

Generally i'm on the side of "if you buy a house on a course, you just have to accept this" so i'm not trying to discount that side of the argument. I understand

 

I think most times when something goes to court, there are reasonable expectations that normal people on a jury see as being excessive or acceptable. If someone was suing because a ball broke a window....it would be like, maybe deal with it. But a house getting crushed over and over i see a jury siding with the home owner, as it seems like past the point of reason and into negligence territory

 

It's like with injury law (at least here). I believe for example that some activities it's expected you are signing away some liability in terms of getting hurt etc....But avoiding serious injury is seen as a basic human right that cannot be signed away.

 

I kind of see it like that. The right to buying a house that isn't bombarded over and over with golf balls seems like a reasonable one

Just seems ironic that that family probably fell in love with the house partly because of it's big yard, mature trees and scenic views.  They couldn't find that in newly developed subdivisions.  So they bought the house being as naive as Mike Tyson signing a Don King contract.

[jdl]

3 hours ago, Danielson said:

Looking at the aerial it looks like the greens driveable (or close to it) if you take a line directly at their house. The trees are super thinned out, most of what's on google maps appears to just be shadows. I don't see why the course didn't just move the teebox after the first few complaints, seems like an easy fix compared to an expensive legal battle. Living on a course you have to accept errant shots winding up in your yard once in a while, but having every long hitter aim at you seems excessive.

That actually happened at another MA course that I've played many times, Wentworth Hills. First hole is a short, sharp dogleg left. When I first played it (actually was #10 back then), from the back/middle tees you could just hit 200-210 straight out and have a wedge in. But of course it was only 240-250 if you cut the corner right over some trees (and houses). For the past 5-6 years those back tees have been unused and you play from 50-60 yards closer. And now it really is a drive-able par 4! 🙂

 

And then there's the 4th hole which used to be a par 5 but became a par 4 because apparently the green was too close to one of the houses. Never got to play it as a 5 but apparently the home owner won that battle as well.

 

It's already a pretty cramped course to begin with, a couple of short par 4s are back to back and close by to adjacent par 3 tee boxes so your head is always on a swivel. Another interesting thing is that part of the course is in Rhode Island, which has its own odd effects, the beverage carts can't operate over there. And during the pandemic they had to shut down the back 9!

[ChaosTheory]

If a course has that many balls leaving the course in one spot, and hitting a home (or street), I think it’s incumbent on them to eliminate the problem.

 

[Nard_S]

I'm okay with the suit & a judgement against what seems to be an idiot of a developer. But $3.5 million for suffering? Come on, that's pretty out there. We all pay that you know. We pay the six figure settlements for fender benders too in our insurance premiums. Happened to me. Hope this gets knocked down to a sober level. 

[PJE]

10 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

Editing my answer due to my misunderstanding of the info

 

You have to read the article in USA today. It seems that while the course WAS built prior to them owning their house (2001 ~ for the course, and they bought their home in 2017)....The potential for damage was severely downplayed by the builders (buyers were told the house being hit had only happened once due to negligence)

 

Also the course apparently encouraged golfers to try and cut the corner which likely resulted in a lot of the damages.

 

Also the guy who owns the course seems to own the housing developments.

 

Just seems a little weird. Not everyone who buys a house near a course knows and understands golf. If there's records of developers/agents telling them damage from balls was incredibly rare and then their house gets treated like WW2 London----i do actually feel quite a bit of sympathy

 

Thanks for the info. Well,  I stand corrected. If the course is encouraging  it …Just having an “old man yells at clouds “ moment, I guess.