Car Hit by a golf ball

[chromatin]

So i was driving down Harvard and got hit on the windshield by a golf ball from Rancho San Joaquin golf course. I spoke to the clubhouse they stated that they aren't liable and said they will try to find who did it. after 24 hours they still havn't called me. I was wondering if anyone has been in this situation ?

The golf course supervisor said it actually has happened a couple time so to me that is negligence. Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions or opinions.

 

[usctrojancpa]

So i was driving down Harvard and got hit on the windshield by a golf ball from Rancho San Joaquin golf course. I spoke to the clubhouse they stated that they aren't liable and said they will try to find who did it. after 24 hours they still havn't called me. I was wondering if anyone has been in this situation ?

The golf course supervisor said it actually has happened a couple time so to me that is negligence. Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions or opinions.

How bad is the damage?  I doubt anyone will take responsibility over at the golf course.  I'll be sure not to drive on that stretch of Harvard.

 

[davenlei]

Every once in a while I see a golf ball bouncing across the street.  Basically the golfer is responsible.  If your car gets hit, look on the course where the ball came from and see if you can see the person who teed off.  Go to the club house and ask them to take you to the hole where you saw the person and get his information.  He probably will deny it but you can ask him to show you where his ball is on the course which he wont be able to if you are fast enough.  Well on second thought, pull over and run (and yell) at them so you can catch the guy before he pops another ball off.

 

[ps99472]

Ask them what ball theyre playing

 

[kalbi]

California supreme court discussed this in a case in 2007.  Basically, unless the golfer was acting/hitting the ball recklessly, he will not be liable.

 

[davenlei]

California supreme court discussed this in a case in 2007.  Basically, unless the golfer was acting/hitting the ball recklessly, he will not be liable.

That sucks.  That is like saying you are not liable unless you are driving/steering the car recklessly when you ran over someone. 

 

[qwerty]

California supreme court discussed this in a case in 2007.  Basically, unless the golfer was acting/hitting the ball recklessly, he will not be liable.

That sucks.  That is like saying you are not liable unless you are driving/steering the car recklessly when you ran over someone. 

i would disagree.  i think it is fair.  its more like parking your car by an outfield of a baseball park and someone hits a homerun and the ball hits your windshield - what can you do?  if anyone is at fault it should be the owners of the golf course who maybe should have nets (or higher nets if they already exist).

 

[chromatin]

After talking to my lawyer sister she told me to sue the golf course in small claims as a learning experience if anything. Claiming negligence on part of the golf course by not putting up preventative measures. I'm only asking for 200 dollars i spent on repairing my windshield and I'm treating it more as a learning experience of the small claims process.  The golf course would probably spend more than 200 sending someone to represent them lol.

 

[davenlei]

California supreme court discussed this in a case in 2007.  Basically, unless the golfer was acting/hitting the ball recklessly, he will not be liable.

That sucks.  That is like saying you are not liable unless you are driving/steering the car recklessly when you ran over someone. 

i would disagree.  i think it is fair.  its more like parking your car by an outfield of a baseball park and someone hits a homerun and the ball hits your windshield - what can you do?  if anyone is at fault it should be the owners of the golf course who maybe should have nets (or higher nets if they already exist).

I would have to disagree.  When you go to a baseball game and park in the parking lot, you know there is a chance your are going to have damage on private property for an event you are participating in as well as the fact most facilities state that by parking there you hold them harmless for any damage.  When driving down a public road, the golf course can't state by driving down a taxpayer road next to them you agree to hold them harmless for damage originating from their property.  If that is the case, then I can state that you release my liability if I practice my golf swing in front of my house while you park in line of where I am hitting my ball.
I am not saying the law does not exist but it is a bulls*it law that may be challengeable. 

 

[davenlei]

Imagine if somebody filed a lawsuit each time some random object bouncing around the Southern California roadways hit their car?  Our court system would be gridlocked with frivolous lawsuits.  Oh wait...it is.

I find car insurance works really well in these situations.

A few years ago a bolt fell off of a truck (I saw it fall off) and hit my car.  It dented my hood and cracked my windshield.  I called the company and at first they were very apologetic and said they would call their insurance company to pay since they admitted their truck was there at the time and they do transport bolts of the type that hit my car.
I received a call back a few hours later by the same person stating that their insurance company will not pay unless I had a video of the bolt coming off the truck and hitting my car as well as the offending bolt in hand for inspection.  I just hung up since they basically want something no one does (record their driving) and I am not willing to run into the freeway to get the bolt.
Paid out of pocket to fix it since calling insurance to fix anything would put a 'marker' in your file.

 

[socal78]

After talking to my lawyer sister she told me to sue the golf course in small claims as a learning experience if anything. Claiming negligence on part of the golf course by not putting up preventative measures. I'm only asking for 200 dollars i spent on repairing my windshield and I'm treating it more as a learning experience of the small claims process.  The golf course would probably spend more than 200 sending someone to represent them lol.

One step at a time. Before you can escalate to small claims, you would need to issue a demand for damages (the amount you want to be awarded in court and can back up) and wait for their response. It is best to do in writing. The first post said contact was made but didn't mention a specific request for damages. By the time you factor in filing fees, (certified mail?), aggravation, and any lost wages, you may not come out ahead so think about ways to work it out with them peacefully. Here is a link to getting started in small claims:
Things to Consider Before Filing - OC Courts

 

[qwerty]

California supreme court discussed this in a case in 2007.  Basically, unless the golfer was acting/hitting the ball recklessly, he will not be liable.

That sucks.  That is like saying you are not liable unless you are driving/steering the car recklessly when you ran over someone. 

i would disagree.  i think it is fair.  its more like parking your car by an outfield of a baseball park and someone hits a homerun and the ball hits your windshield - what can you do?  if anyone is at fault it should be the owners of the golf course who maybe should have nets (or higher nets if they already exist).

I would have to disagree.  When you go to a baseball game and park in the parking lot, you know there is a chance your are going to have damage on private property for an event you are participating in as well as the fact most facilities state that by parking there you hold them harmless for any damage.  When driving down a public road, the golf course can't state by driving down a taxpayer road next to them you agree to hold them harmless for damage originating from their property.  If that is the case, then I can state that you release my liability if I practice my golf swing in front of my house while you park in line of where I am hitting my ball.
I am not saying the law does not exist but it is a bulls*it law that may be challengeable. 

this is why i was saying that the golf course was the one who was at fault, not the golfer themselves.

 

[chromatin]

I already sent the golf course a claim for my damages and their legal is supposed to send me something still waiting on it. I'll keep you guys updated

 

[davenlei]

California supreme court discussed this in a case in 2007.  Basically, unless the golfer was acting/hitting the ball recklessly, he will not be liable.

That sucks.  That is like saying you are not liable unless you are driving/steering the car recklessly when you ran over someone. 

i would disagree.  i think it is fair.  its more like parking your car by an outfield of a baseball park and someone hits a homerun and the ball hits your windshield - what can you do?  if anyone is at fault it should be the owners of the golf course who maybe should have nets (or higher nets if they already exist).

I would have to disagree.  When you go to a baseball game and park in the parking lot, you know there is a chance your are going to have damage on private property for an event you are participating in as well as the fact most facilities state that by parking there you hold them harmless for any damage.  When driving down a public road, the golf course can't state by driving down a taxpayer road next to them you agree to hold them harmless for damage originating from their property.  If that is the case, then I can state that you release my liability if I practice my golf swing in front of my house while you park in line of where I am hitting my ball.
I am not saying the law does not exist but it is a bulls*it law that may be challengeable. 

this is why i was saying that the golf course was the one who was at fault, not the golfer themselves.

Ah, sorry.  Jumped the gun.

 

[kalbi]

i'm pretty sure the golf course is going to come back with assumption of risk defense, and the small claims judge will agree.

 

[chromatin]

i'm pretty sure the golf course is going to come back with assumption of risk defense, and the small claims judge will agree.

If i was on a golf course road i will agree. However, i was on a public road. In 2000 someone sued the golf course after getting hit while playing at the golf course for 7.5 million and won because ?? the golf course has an obligation to design a golf course to minimize the risk that players will be hit by golf balls, e.g., by the way the various tees, fairways and greens are aligned or separated.??t by golf balls, e.g., by the way the various tees, fairways and greens are aligned or separated.?? So my argument is the golf course's design is flawed as it failed to design sufficient things to block and minimize the chance of a golf ball from flying out of the golf course. If it hit a car before me the chances are at least 3 to 4 golf balls flies out every weekend.  Everyone that passes through harvard (Near the middle after the walls end) know that they basically have nothing. No netting or even large trees. Watch out specially during the weekend!

 

[chromatin]

BTW anyone know if rancho san joaquin golf course was always a public golf course or was it private at one point?