Step 2: Sue golf course because balls land constantly on your property. Step 3: Lose lawsuit. [Ravalli, Mont., Republic]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 5 comments }
Just because patrons of the golf course routinely trespassed on the land that would become their home in the past, does not establish a perpetual right of the golf course to use their yard as an extension of the golf course.
The golf course is receiving economic benefit from the trespass; it did not have to purchase sufficient land surrounding it originally to act as buffer for the known hazard of golf balls leaving the field of play.
A common sense, common law judge.
That argument sounds like someone buying a house close to a busy airport, thencomplaining about the noise. Caveat emptor—the buyer should know, or should have known, that before buying.
Gasman said : The golf course did not purchase sufficient land surrounding it to act as buffer for the known hazard of golf balls leaving the field of play.
How about this: The homeowner did not purchase enough land surrounding his house to act as a buffer for the known hazard of golf balls leaving the nearby golfcourse……..
“Hey, look, a nuisance–I think I’ll go to it.”
Comments on this entry are closed.