Free balls.

The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

pissedoffmick: "strife and self-loathing" --- my new band has a name.

The Judge has a sense of humor. Good for him. The people are both golfers and should have known better.

Just can't get over the smell of that dairy air.

NewportBarGuy: The previous owners took the pool with them?

those stupid pricks bought the house with the intention of suing the golf course. i hope they both get hit on the head and die.

AverageAmericanGuy: Just can't get over the smell of that dairy air.

heh

BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who move practically across the street from an arena and complain about everything involved with a sports game or music concert to the point of trying to get the arena - which was there first - shut down?

shoot them. shoot them both.

Ravioli Republic? They must be fat slobs.

Robert and Katherine Brady sued the Hamilton Golf Club

What a bunch o' whiners

Mr. Coffee Nerves: That's nothing. A couple I used to work with bought a course-adjacent house. Being somewhat normal and avid golfers they understood that the house would be pelted with golf balls regularly and that sunny weekend days were risky days to be in the backyard.

What they didn't expect was the old men in the "crack of dawn" foursomes to wake them by screaming "Corksucking motherfarking coontrag son of a whore ball! You slicing piece of farking shiat!" and, on more than one occasion, looking out the window to see an old man shiatting in the treeline between their house and the 5th fairway.

I had a friend who set a loudspeaker and ask "Why are you taking my name in vain?" when that happened.

The homeowners who sued are asshats, but seriously how can 1300 balls per year be such bad shots that they go over their 20 feet of fencing/net?

I'm not a golfer, but aren't you supposed to hit the ball towards a hole in the ground which is on a green which is presumably on the golf course and not in these people's backyard?

Are golfers usually drunk by the time they get to the 18th hole?

Maybe they need a higher net. I've seen much higher nets on driving ranges.

doglover: Krieghund: They sued and lost.

This is how the system is supposed to work.

No, it's not.

They sued over some retarded crap and were not fed to lions for even entertaining the idea of such a frivolous and pointless waste of everyone's time.

The system is clearly broken.



wonder if they can be sued for being retarded in picking a house next to a golf course and the fact that they tried suing for obvious stuff that would happen when buying a house near a golf course...

Happy Hours: I'm not a golfer, but aren't you supposed to hit the ball towards a hole in the ground which is on a green which is presumably on the golf course

Yeah, even the best laid plans...

Because, you should have children playing here, you should have families having picnics, you should have a goddamn petting zoo. But instead you've got these stupid electric carts for you old men with nothing better to do.

I am not for lawsuits, but I do appreciate a measure of justice, and I don't see that they got it here. This is not "airplane noise." This is the golf course using their property as an over-run for a non-trivial number of balls. It doesn't matter that there was a sheep pasture there before - 1300 balls per year suggests that the golf course is as a matter of ordinary business running a business that not by accident, but by design causes its patrons to disrupt their property. It would seem to me that the golf course would have an obligation to put up netting or re-design their course to make the ball onto private property an extreme outlier - which 1300 per year is not. these people are entitled to their private property - the golf course is not.

i dont think this is a trivial lawsuit. these people got shafted. their private property is being used at no charge by the golf course as an over-run, and presumably they are unable to fully enjoy their yard because of this. surely they can prevent access to their yard by golfers and sue those who trespass.

unfortunately, US law is not well set up to handle such 'micro-torts.' even if such torts in aggregate weigh more than actionable claims.

No pic of the judge in The Addams Family movie?

Fark, I am disappoint...

ShawnDoc: BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who buy a house next to a dairy or mushroom farm, and then complain about the smell?

Reminds me of the people in Ocean City, MD who not only bought condos next to their sewer plant, but had the audacity to complain to the city council about the smell. Oh, and get this, the city even built a false front facing the condos to make it less like a sewer plant. The guys still laugh about it to this day.

Bob The Nob: shoot them. shoot them both.

FTA:

At that time, the property was a sheep pasture owned by Willard Bullock. He apparently reacted angrily when people tried to cross the fence to retrieve the errant balls and went as far as to put up both electrified and concertina wire to keep golfers out.

Serious about staying off of his lawn. Serious.

KrispyKritter: sadly i've seen very expensive tall walls built alongside highways at taxpayer expense because of whiners.paid huge money for homes near highway, oh noes teh noise! holy crap.
just like people who buy near a recycle station but never bothered driving around the neighborhood to see what they were getting into. morans. when they take the township to court they should be removed from the home and the house given to homeless veterans who would be happy to live there.

also, I've seen cities put in expensive public transport and sewer systems after people move in as cities expand and populated areas grow. didn't those morans see that there were only septic systems when they first moved in? in other news, cities grow and population changes move and infrastructure has to be built to accommodate this. but, no, i understand - you aren't personally affected (neither am i, by the way, but i actually do be fairly consistent in my progressive-liberal ideas), so you instinctively take the anti-view. gotcha.

BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

There's one more group. From the late 40 through the 90s the Hickman family in Glendale, Arizona had been raising chickens and selling eggs on their property. In the late 90s the owner of the farmland across the road sold it to a developer. Tract homes were then built on the land. People who bought and moved into these homes started biatching about the smell from the half a million or so chickens at the Hickman place. By the time these morans moved in, the Hickmans had been raising chickens at that location for 50 years. The homeowners raised such a fuss that the Hickmans moved their operation about 30 miles away. Mike Rowe went there once to shovel chicken shiat for an episode of Dirty Jobs.

How in the hell could someone move in across the street from half a million chickens and not notice? Ok. Maybe some of these fools were upwind of the chickens when they went to look at the homes. Still, how could you not see the big signs that said Hickman egg ranch? How could you not see the huge buildings?

This reminds me of a dairy farm in Coolidge. There's a sign on the fence warning home buyers that agricultural fragrances may be present near the farm. It's not uncommon to see thousands of cows and huge piles of b.s. there. It boggles the mind to consider what the morans driving through that area on a hot Arizona summer day might have expected to smell. Roses maybe?

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves:

Mmmm, no. If the golf course popped up out of nowhere after the couple moved in, then the couple would have a case. The judge had it right.

Well counselor, I'm bowled over by the sheer power of the repetitive vapidity of your assertion. So, now that you've convinced me on general principle, i'm sure you'll also have no problem with my claim that just because my scrapyard has been dumping 50 or so used tires per year in the abandoned but private lot that you purchased for redevelopment, that i should be able to do this indefinitely. after all, if 1300 golf balls are a deliberate and predictable action, then my 50 tires per year are no different. after all, i wuz here first and you should have seen that i dump tires here regularly.

go ahead - i await your "yeah but" distinction wihout a difference reply.

ShawnDoc: BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who buy a house next to a dairy or mushroom farm, and then complain about the smell?

Or move next to a whorehouse and complain about their boners?

AverageAmericanGuy: Just can't get over the smell of that dairy air.

How long did you walk across Wisconsin before finding your Chevrolet?

/too obscure

PaLarkin: AverageAmericanGuy: Just can't get over the smell of that dairy air.

How long did you walk across Wisconsin before finding your Chevrolet?

/too obscure

After the Brewers game, I'm pretty foggy.

Bomb Head Mohammed: surely they can prevent access to their yard by golfers and sue those who trespass.

FTFA: This opinion simply holds that members and users of the HGC's 18th tee, rough, and hole commit no trespass when errant golf balls enter into Brady's property."

The golfers are not allowed to trespass. And the judge was right. If they simply asked about /at the golf course I'm sure people would have been able to tell them what was happening with the balls in the garden. They didn't so they lost.

FizixJunkee: ShawnDoc: BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who buy a house next to a dairy or mushroom farm, and then complain about the smell?

Or move next to a whorehouse and complain about their boners a fishy smell?

FTFY

Callous: ShawnDoc: BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who buy a house next to a dairy or mushroom farm, and then complain about the smell?

What about people that buy a house next to a Rod & Gun club and then sue about the sound of gunfire?

Or those people with the house that the Mythbusters fired a cannonball into?

DerAppie: Bomb Head Mohammed: surely they can prevent access to their yard by golfers and sue those who trespass.

FTFA: This opinion simply holds that members and users of the HGC's 18th tee, rough, and hole commit no trespass when errant golf balls enter into Brady's property."

The golfers are not allowed to trespass. And the judge was right. If they simply asked about /at the golf course I'm sure people would have been able to tell them what was happening with the balls in the garden. They didn't so they lost.

Ok, then by logic, my throwing of used tires from the curb onto your property also is "no trespass." (read my previous post). You might say "wait, but one is an accident and the other is on purpose." Bullshiat. 1300 golf balls a year is not an accident - it's a stochastical inevitability. But you might say "well, but the golf balls are part of the golf course's business" which is true, just like getting rid of old tires is part of mine. but you then say "but the golf course has no choice in the matter but you with your tires do" which is again bullshiat. The golf course can put up a net or re-design its green so that it is not causing interference with a landowner's safe and lawful use of his own property.

1300 golf balls is no accident and the golf course is not a charity. the judge ruled the same way a lot of you are reasoning about this case - by seat of the pants common sense rather than the application of any principle. there may well be a principle in favor of the golf course owner here, but i haven't seen it.

Hawnkee: ShawnDoc: BSABSVR: The only people I sympathize with less than people who buy a house near an airport and complain about noise? People who live adjacent to a golf course and complain about golf balls.

What about people who buy a house next to a dairy or mushroom farm, and then complain about the smell?

Reminds me of the people in Ocean City, MD who not only bought condos next to their sewer plant, but had the audacity to complain to the city council about the smell. Oh, and get this, the city even built a false front facing the condos to make it less like a sewer plant. The guys still laugh about it to this day.

Even better. In a town that borders the town I live in, there is a monastery that sat on acres of land. For decades part of that land was used as a baseball field and a practice field for a Catholic high school's football and soccer teams and for the pee wee football teams. The monastery decided to sell part of the land to some developers, and million dollar homes were built on the land. Within a few years of the first house being sold the home owners started complaining about the noise from the practices, and sued not to have the practice times moved or restricted, but to have the practices stopped all together.