Wear one of these to garden...
Golfer Being Sued For Errant Shot
By Kickntrue on 2/12/10
An Illinois golfer is being sued for hitting his golf ball out of bounds and hitting a resident with at an adjacent house.
On Aug. 25, 2005, a golf ball from St. Andrews Golf & Country Club hit Lillian Demo, then 46, on the head as she worked in her yard. Naperville businessman Raymond Kinney, an "experienced golfer," according to the lawsuit, struck the ball on the 17th tee ....

Demo sued in 2007, saying Kinney was negligent by failing to aim properly and to properly execute the swing of his golf club. She said she suffers migraine headaches as a result.
The has been allowed to go to trail and a jury has been selected. The judge has instructed them to determine negligence.

I'm not even going to spend the time ranting. I think it's pretty obvious what I'll say, and it's Friday afternoon so spending 20 minutes typing 500 words just doesn't seem necessary.

Full Story

photo source

[ comments ]
Bryan K says:
Wow....I've never been hit with a house before.
Kickntrue says:
@bjohn13- nice catch... fixed.
activesense says:
Oh come on....thats BS ! ! !
You bought a house next to a golf course, you must have been somewhat aware of the inherant risks of such a venture. It is no different to attending a sporting event where spectator/ball contact is possible. The tickets you buy have a "no responsibilty" disclaimer on them. Sorry you got hit, but you need to listen out for people shouting FORE.
I trust they won't be having any Demo days at that course in the near future. (Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the target's name)
Shankapotamus says:
If failing to "properly execute the swing of his club" becomes a reason to sue someone, I better get an attorney on retainer.
Trip says:
Where I live, we had someone sue a restaurant because they ate a piece of mussel shell in their "pasta w/mussel" dinner. The judge ruled "when you order a meal called "pasta w/mussels" there is a reasonable expectation that you might get a piece of mussel shell in you dinner".
Same rule applies here... buy a house near a gold course, you can expect a few errant shots.
Matt F says:
@Trip - I wish I had a house near a gold course...I might have more money in the bank!! :)

scottccherry says:
Sure, the property may come with an inherent risk, but you must keep in mind that almost all golf courses with houses lining the fairways have signs that say "You are responsible for any liability caused by an errant golf ball." Or something along those lines. Do I think she should sue? Probably not. But even so, she will probably win.
aaronm04 says:
@scottcherry: I live in a golf course community (not on the course proper) and have never seen any such signs here (or on any other course lined with houses). This may vary by state but I haven't seen any here in Texas. Even still, like a lot of signs in general, they may not be legally binding.
mmontisano says:
i've seen those signs in Texas, but good luck trying to find a course down here without houses lining the fairways....
cjgiant says:
Would all the same apply if it were a window? Sure, you invite the risk of annoyance for a broken window, but not necessarily the cost of replacing it. Granted catching the golfer who broke your window may not be an easy venture, but if the owner does, the golfer I believe would be liable.

And those disclaimers may also be on the scorecards. I think they are there simply to notify golfers of the law of the city/state.
scottccherry says:
I just reread the article, and the things she's suing for are ridiculous at best. At least sure for something that can be measured, such as pain and suffering. I{ am not on her side.
And again, I don't think she should sue, as there are always risks living next to golf courses. But the golfer is probably still liable, unfortunately.
mjaber says:
Was she living in her house prior to the golf course being there? If so, she MIGHT have a very wobbly leg to stand on. There was a course near me that was built in an area where there were already a number of houses. One particular tee was causing a number of golfers to break the windows of a particular house, which the owner had lived in since before the course had been built. The owner submitted the bills for the broken windows to the course. The bills were paid, and the course made the decision to move the tee to prevent future issues.

That said, I don't think this woman has too much of a chance. If the course has been there for a while, you know what's going on and should take the necessary precautions. Just like if you live near an airport. If the airport has been there for a while, and you decide you suddenly don't like the noise... move.
bortass says:
It's funny I've seen this come up on a long discussion on another board a few years ago. My understanding is the legal precedent is that the golfer is not liable for any damages unless you can prove willful intent. Hit a house and break a window or even a person off the course. Inherent risk.
sam004 says:
"Was she living in her house prior to the golf course being there? If so, she MIGHT have a very wobbly leg to stand on. "

Doubtful as the course opened in the 1920's

Was he neglegent, doubtful.


There's a lot more to the story than what in the news, money and politics.
I'll try to dig up the back story for those interested.
sam004 says:
Neighbors of the golf course have been at odds with the golf coursefor sometime.
The golf course is also named in the suit. This should not even be allowed to go to trial.


[ post comment ]
    New Products
    Caption This
    World Am
    How Bizarre!
Most Popular: