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.”