|From:||Bruce Pardy <email@example.com>|
|To:||Matthew P. Harrington <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||25/04/2022 14:41:38 UTC|
|Subject:||Re: $5 Million for Golf Balls Landing in the Garden - Miller v Jackson Comes to the Links|
Members of the list might be interested to read about a case involving a Massachusetts couple who bought a home on a golf course and then sued because golf balls were landing in the garden and breaking the windows.
The couple admitted that the course (which was built 20 years before) was there before they arrived. The plaintiffs admitted that they knew the golf course was there: “Should we have looked into chances our house would be hit? Probably. I don’t know. We just fell in love with the house. It was our first house.”
The result is that they have been traumatized: “Flying balls shattered windows in their house with such force they sent glass spraying into the next room; the siding on the house was peppered with circular dents, like a battleship in a war zone.” Things got so bad that “their castle became their prison”.
The judge granted an injunction and the jury awarded $3.5 million for emotional distress (interest brings the award to $5 million).
An interesting aspect of the case is that the club took an easement on all the surrounding house lots before selling them to the public.
The hole has since been reconfigured and they admit that no more balls have landed in the year. So, problem solved. Nonetheless, the course is appealing because it cannot pay the judgement.
Matthew P Harrington
Directeur, Programme de common law
Faculté de droit
Université de Montréal