Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Golf ball from course hit car on public road - liability?

  • 12-08-2012 5:42pm
    #1
    John James OHara
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭


    If a car is traveling on a public road, drives by a pitch and putt course, and a golf ball hits the bonnet and puts a nasty dent in it, who is liable?

    From a quick google search, it appears that the car owner is **** out of luck, but this just feels so wrong I can't believe it.

    Even if a sign in the club stated that any damage caused by a player was that players responsibility. To me, this seems irrelevant. The car driver would not have signed up to adhere to these rules. He would just be driving his car by the club, should it be up to him to try and enforce the rules?

    Would it matter also if there were no nets at all between the club and the road? Seems like this must be a common occurrence and I can't believe that the club can't be somewhat responsible for this.

    - edited to better comply with charter
    Tagged:


Comments

  • #2
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Can't give legal advice because of charter so I'm pretending this is a hypothetical. I'm also a first year law student so know dangerously less than sweet FA.

    Right - You would be alleging negligence on behalf of the 'golfer' and 'club' - sue everyone let the court sort it out. There has to be reasonable forseeability and a duty of care. Pretty sure there would be but any corrections most welcome as I'm revising :P Causation would be Res Ipsa - e.g. bloody obvious so the onus to prove reasonable step were taken shift to the club. Hmmm just realised this is all based on Personal Injury rather than property damage - hmmm back to the books.


  • #3
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    John James OHara wrote: »
    If a car is traveling on a public road, drives by a pitch and putt course, and a golf ball hits the bonnet and puts a nasty dent in it, who is liable?

    The owner pointed to a sign stating that rules of the club. The first rule was that any damage caused by a player was that players responsibility. To me, this was irrelevant. I did not sign up to adhere to these rules, I was just driving my car by the club, should it be up to me to try and enforce his rules?

    Surely your claim would be against the player who hit the ball?? They are the one who damaged your car.


  • #4
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Paulw wrote: »
    Surely your claim would be against the player who hit the ball?? They are the one who damaged your car.

    They've the expectation that the club have taken the right steps to avoid damage. If the golfer was doing something really stupid that could be a Novus Actus but I'm pretty sure the club is vicariously liable. (Kind just hoping to scrape a pass sure. :P)


  • #5
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Golfers should be carrying insurance against 3rd party damage. The challenge would be to identify the golfer.

    I'd be suprised if a pitch and putt golfer had insurance though.


  • #6
    Palo Alto
    Registered Users Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Palo Alto


    It would be covered by the golf course's insurance I would imagine. Better suing them but in practice you'd name the individual too if you knew who it was.

    Hypothetically of course.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Interestingly - or not.

    If this where nuisance and England - the liability would be strict on a public highway.


  • #8
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    Sounds like good ole Rylands v. Fletcher to me. I'd go after the club not the golfer, if the club want to blame the golfer they can add them as a third party to the action.

    Of course, youll need to see a solicitor if this was a real scenario.


  • #9
    John James OHara
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭John James OHara


    Paulw wrote: »

    Surely your claim would be against the player who hit the ball?? They are the one who damaged your car.

    Yeah but would be but impossible to identify who did it. I would imagine the hypothetical groups of golfers in question would not admit to any stray balls.


  • #10
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Sounds like good ole Rylands v. Fletcher to me. I'd go after the club not the golfer, if the club want to blame the golfer they can add them as a third party to the action.

    Of course, youll need to see a solicitor if this was a real scenario.

    Hmmm you have a point - golf balls as an accumulation? :)


  • #11
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Hmmm you have a point - golf balls as an accumulation? :)

    The whole golf course and everything that comes with it (balls, buggies) as an accumulation.

    Youd have to wonder whether the course providing the ball or the player bringing the golf ball with them would change anything, hrmm...


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Jo King
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Jo King


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Interestingly - or not.

    If this where nuisance and England - the liability would be strict on a public highway.

    What about this case?

    Miller v Jackson
    [1977] Q.B. 966 (C.A.)

    LORD DENNING, M.R.


  • #13
    RandolphEsq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,296 ✭✭✭RandolphEsq


    The golf club will have public liability insurance for stray balls. My golf course covers up to €600 damage so enough to fix a broken window.


  • #14
    Ken.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    RandolphEsq wrote: »
    The golf club will have public liability insurance for stray balls. My golf course covers up to €600 damage so enough to fix a broken window.
    Same for the course my stepfather plays at. €600-€700 for damage to property and up to €500,000 if a person walking the road was to be hit and injured.


  • #15
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,235 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Jo King wrote: »
    What about this case?

    Miller v Jackson
    [1977] Q.B. 966 (C.A.)

    LORD DENNING, M.R.
    I disagree. That plaintiff sought an injunction on a pre-existing use. You don't built a nursing home for war veterans next to a quarry and then complain about the blasting, do you? :) The pre-existing non-material 'nuisance' of the balls going into the adjacent field would be considered acceptable, the worst likely damage being damage to crops. It seems the farmer accepted it. The material nuisance came about from the building of the houses next to the cricket field.

    With the golf club, the ball landed on the public road, along which anyone could travel. Passers-by have not consented to the nuisance. There are strong public policy reasons to not allow such hazards. I would think that primary responsibility would attach to the golf club - it is they, not individual golfers, who control things like the planting and netting,


  • #16
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Victor wrote: »
    I disagree.

    Everyone disagrees, because Miller v Jackson is plain wrong and everybody knows it. It's sort of ignored.


  • #17
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,235 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    234 wrote: »
    Everyone disagrees, because Miller v Jackson is plain wrong and everybody knows it. It's sort of ignored.

    I disagree. :) It is right in the context. The cricket field was positioned safely, the houses weren't.


  • #18
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Victor wrote: »
    I disagree. :) It is right in the context. The cricket field was positioned safely, the houses weren't.
    The overwhelming factor of the context being Lord Denning's love of circket?:)


  • #19
    John James OHara
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭John James OHara


    Windscreen being shattered would have actually been a better result as the windscreen cover would have covered that!

    Would your insurance company be likely to offer any assistance in this matter at all?


  • #20
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    I'd got the above case confused with Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 - I wonder if the element of national sport has anything to do with these judgments?

    Perhaps if it had been a hurling rather than a golf ball?


  • #21
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    I don't see Denhma CJ as much of a camogie enthusiast!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,855 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Hypothetically and since your supposed to inform your insurance company of all accidents or incidents could you not let your insurance company sort it out? Call them up and say I was hit by a golf ball from xxxx course and let them deal with it.

    Isn't that why we pay them money


Advertisement