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.
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……..
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.”