In many parts of the United States, courts have ruled in favor of a club when an adjacent homeowner complains about golf balls landing in his yard. Indeed, the majority rule in the country is that the homeowners assume the risk of having golf balls hit onto their property when they buy next to a golf course. But a new legal theory has begun to succeed, at least in New York, and it could be a problem for clubs across the country.
Recently, we have seen more Plaintiffs cite “trespass” laws as their basis for their lawsuit against a club. They base their claim on the number and frequency of golf balls hit onto their property. Unfortunately, this claim is gaining traction.
Just last month, a New Your appeals court reversed a ruling that went in favor of Quaker Ridge Golf Club—host of the 1997 Walker Cup and neighbor to the famed Winged Foot Golf Club. In the lower court’s decision, the New York trial judge dismissed a homeowner’s claim that Quaker Ridge had not done enough to prevent balls from entering their yard. The judge stated that the existence of the golf course next to the home was “open and obvious” to the plaintiffs, and thus “the risk of golf balls landing on the premises was apparent.” The homeowners decided to appeal that result.
In reversing that decision, the appeals court did in fact give credence to the trespass claim, by stating that Quaker Ridge “failed to sufficiently reduce the number of golf balls landing on the plaintiff’s property” creating an “uncomfortable and inconvenient” environment and that enough golf balls were hit with such frequency over a period of time as to amount to willfulness. Simply put, although the plaintiffs moved into a home next to a golf course, the course was still liable for the balls hit onto the homeowners’ premises due to the number of balls hit and the trouble it caused the couple.
Quaker Ridge may appeal the decision to New York’s top court, but this ruling could set a precedent for errant ball claims and open more clubs to the trespass argument. As of now, the defense that a homeowner “came to the nuisance” is still the majority rule in the United States, but that will only apply if the Plaintiff actually decides to sue under that theory of law. Since he will not likely succeed on it, it’s more likely that Plaintiff’s attorneys will now be focusing more and more on the trespass theory.
This is not the first time a highly contested errant ball decision has been made in New York. At adjacent Winged Foot Golf Club in 2008, a trial court judge issued a controversial ruling when he levied a temporary suspension on the course’s sixth hole after a homeowner filed an errant ball suit against the club—using the trespass theory. Although Winged Foot did put up new trees to prevent balls from entering the plaintiff’s property, the judge deemed it was not enough.
Trespass is becoming more and more of a favored legal line of attack for these kinds of plaintiffs. In Fenton v. Quaboag Country Club Inc., the plaintiff moved into a home next to the Massachusetts golf course and saw 250 balls enter the property each year. Quaboag built a 24-foot high fence, yet balls still went over. The court ruled in the homeowners favor as this constituted trespass.
In another Massachusetts case, a court once again enforced the majority rule and rejected a nuisance claim because the plaintiff “came to the nuisance;” however, the court upheld the trespass claim against the club.
Several years ago, a Montana homeowner filed an errant ball claim based on nuisance and trespass. In that instance, the golf course won against the nuisance claim (as we would expect) and defended the trespass claim by asserting that it held a prescriptive easement that allowed the golf balls to enter the property.
Claiming a prescriptive easement is often difficult and requires adherence to certain statutory requirements, but in this case it worked. The homeowners had not complained about golf balls coming into the property for Montana’s five-year period required for a prescriptive easement to be created. So, the club overcame the trespass claim, too.
Though clubs do have an opportunity to win in these types of cases, it is best to try to avoid them all together—as shown by the Quaker Ridge ruling. Therefore, it is always important for golf courses to prevent balls from unnecessarily entering an adjacent residential home as poorly hit balls can cause damage to property and injure bystanders. Equally, clubs should be prepared to provide proper notice to nearby homeowners informing them of the risks of living close to a golf course.
In the end, plaintiff’s attorneys are becoming more adept at going after clubs. As such, private clubs need to be more aware of how their members play and what that play could mean if a trespass claim is filed against the club. If it happens and your club has not taken the steps necessary to minimize the number of golf balls hit into a homeowner’s yard, the result can hit your bottom line harder than any slice or snap-hook your members may hit.
