The assumption of risk doctrine should apply to everyone, including the homeowner. If I were adjusting the claim I’d deny liability for two reasons. First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.
Wait a second. You wrote “First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.”
First you say you would deny because stray shots are foreseeable – assuming the risk. Then you say you would deny because no negligence because the stray shot is not foreseeable. Is a stray shot foreseeable or not? Can’t be both.
Sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify. The assumption of risk is a given. Stray shots from a golfer is a foreseeable event “to the property owner”. In other words, the owner should realize his property is exposed to stray shot. With that forseeability comes the assumption of risk that he want to live there anyway.
A stray shot from a golfer, unless there’s horseplay involved, doesn’t imply any negligence. Even the best golfers have them. In the absence of no negligence on the part of the golfer, there is no liability to the homeowner.
You must have seen me play. The only place I knew the ball wouldn’t go was towards the hole. Isn’t there some type of safety glass the homeowner could use? Greater cost, but no more than replacing the windows all the time.
Did y’all see that a 12 or 13 yr old girl was killed yesterday after getting hit in the face with a softball? I don’t know the particulars of the story, but it isn’t often that you get two such deaths in one week.
I remember a game I saw at our local minor league team. Back then the screen ended at the dugout. A lefty fought off a pitch and it flew right over the home dugout and smacked this guy 5 rows up right in the chest hard enough to make his popcorn fly all the way out onto the field. The next year the screen was extended to the end of the dugout. Even so, two people have gotten nailed there in the last week. One in the shoulder and another in the leg.
The only way to make baseball completely safe for spectators is to entirely cover the audience with screens front and above. Kind of like a fan aviary.
I suspect that you are hearing more about these kind of things lately is because the press is choosing to cover them. Not saying there is an agenda, but for what ever reason, the press is picking up on these stories now and so it is being thrust into the limelight.
Im surprised no one has enlightened you folks yet, but the guy did not have to pay for the broken window. He volunteered out of ignorance.
The golfer is not lible in any way. As long as its not intentional, you can hit another golfer, a car, or a house, and you are not lible. Thats how it shakes out in the courts.
That is news to me! I used to be an adjuster and saw plenty of claims for golf balls hitting homes, cars and other golfers and the homeowner’s paid the damages even though it was not intentional.
I have also seen many claims be paid for people unintentionlly slipping on ice, stairways, or cars hitting other cars unintentionally and paying the claim.
If the damage was intentional then it is excluded under most policies. If the damage was caused by negligence – forseeable or not, most insurance carriers would pay. That is my experience. Otherwise even if the golfer offered to pay, that does not mean the insurance company would pay. Your saying the insurance companies do not know they do not have to pay these claims.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Thats the point. The homeowner built the house in that location. He knew the risk when he built it. It should have never been built in that location.
The assumption of risk doctrine should apply to everyone, including the homeowner. If I were adjusting the claim I’d deny liability for two reasons. First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.
Wait a second. You wrote “First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.”
First you say you would deny because stray shots are foreseeable – assuming the risk. Then you say you would deny because no negligence because the stray shot is not foreseeable. Is a stray shot foreseeable or not? Can’t be both.
Sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify. The assumption of risk is a given. Stray shots from a golfer is a foreseeable event “to the property owner”. In other words, the owner should realize his property is exposed to stray shot. With that forseeability comes the assumption of risk that he want to live there anyway.
A stray shot from a golfer, unless there’s horseplay involved, doesn’t imply any negligence. Even the best golfers have them. In the absence of no negligence on the part of the golfer, there is no liability to the homeowner.
You must have seen me play. The only place I knew the ball wouldn’t go was towards the hole. Isn’t there some type of safety glass the homeowner could use? Greater cost, but no more than replacing the windows all the time.
Did y’all see that a 12 or 13 yr old girl was killed yesterday after getting hit in the face with a softball? I don’t know the particulars of the story, but it isn’t often that you get two such deaths in one week.
I remember a game I saw at our local minor league team. Back then the screen ended at the dugout. A lefty fought off a pitch and it flew right over the home dugout and smacked this guy 5 rows up right in the chest hard enough to make his popcorn fly all the way out onto the field. The next year the screen was extended to the end of the dugout. Even so, two people have gotten nailed there in the last week. One in the shoulder and another in the leg.
The only way to make baseball completely safe for spectators is to entirely cover the audience with screens front and above. Kind of like a fan aviary.
I suspect that you are hearing more about these kind of things lately is because the press is choosing to cover them. Not saying there is an agenda, but for what ever reason, the press is picking up on these stories now and so it is being thrust into the limelight.
Im surprised no one has enlightened you folks yet, but the guy did not have to pay for the broken window. He volunteered out of ignorance.
The golfer is not lible in any way. As long as its not intentional, you can hit another golfer, a car, or a house, and you are not lible. Thats how it shakes out in the courts.
That is news to me! I used to be an adjuster and saw plenty of claims for golf balls hitting homes, cars and other golfers and the homeowner’s paid the damages even though it was not intentional.
I have also seen many claims be paid for people unintentionlly slipping on ice, stairways, or cars hitting other cars unintentionally and paying the claim.
If the damage was intentional then it is excluded under most policies. If the damage was caused by negligence – forseeable or not, most insurance carriers would pay. That is my experience. Otherwise even if the golfer offered to pay, that does not mean the insurance company would pay. Your saying the insurance companies do not know they do not have to pay these claims.
C-ya