Bomb Head Mohammed: 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.
Bomb Head Mohammed: 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.
The Onion is prophetic: They sued, and lost... bigtime. Hopefully their lawyer was smart enough to get cash up front and not go with a contingency agreement.
Bomb Head Mohammed: the judge ruled the same way a lot of you are reasoning about this case - by seat of the pants common sense
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?
Mr. Coffee Nerves: 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!"
AverageAmericanGuy: Just can't get over the smell of that dairy air.
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 the smell?
Bomb Head Mohammed: 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.
Bomb Head Mohammed: 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.
MathProf: I think this might be the 18th hole in question:
painless42: This sort of thing makes me wonder how much time people actually spend thinking about what is probably the most expensive purchase of their life. I used to drive over a patch of "semi-highway" for lack of a better term. 3 lanes each way, limited traffic lights, 50 mph. On this road there is a bridge over a heavily travelled section of Union Pacific double train tracks. There are now new housing developments on two of the "corners". So while driving over the elevated bridge about 30 ft. up I can see into the back yards of a bunch of houses, so I know they can hear the road noise. The whole last row of each development backs right up against the tracks which are also slightly elevated and only separated by the right of way.... its a recipe for auditory misery, but yet they're all sold. I'm really curious as to who the guy was who chose that back corner lot that is sided by the highway AND the train tracks. What the hell was he thinking? I know that developers will price certain lots more than others, but if I'm buying a $300k house (what these houses cost) , even if you offered me that lot for free I'd still walk away.... pay for a lot, find a cheaper house, find an existing house... basically anything short of being next to a Superfund site is a step up. I just don't understand the thought process./CSB
painless42: I'm really curious as to who the guy was who chose that back corner lot that is sided by the highway AND the train tracks.
Mark Ratner: Free balls.
Vegan Meat Popsicle: So, basically, some people threw $1500 on your lawn last year and you're annoyed about it.
Want the rest of the Farking story? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 22 2018 17:12:20
Runtime: 0.296 sec (296 ms)