# Who's Liable Here?



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

This morning I was driving to a function held at a local golf resort. As I was driving along the private entrance road to the clubhouse, a golfer, apparently from the first tee, hit a line drive that went right through my windshield, shattering it. Fortunately, I was not injured and I was able to maintain control of my car, but there was glass everywhere.

The golf club is taking the position they have no responsibility, that I had to find the golfer and "settle" with him or her. I never saw either the golfer or the golf ball that hit me, since the shot came from above a ridge which separates the road from the course. One of the golf employees took me on a cart to the threesome who had obviously hit the shot (based on the club's chart of tee off times), but none would admit they did it. Like most of the golfers at this resort, they're also all tourists who will be gone from the city by this evening.

There were no warning signs posted, and I'm sure no one driving along that entry road would know there is a risk since you can't even see the course from the road. No netting is placed to prevent driven balls from going into that area.

Unfortunately for the club, I'm a lawyer, so I will be making a written demand on Tuesday (after Memorial Day), and if they don't agree to cover the cost of replacement of my windshield I will sue. Also unfortunately for the club, a couple of the employees said this has happened before and I'm not the first person to get nailed. So it seems I have a pretty good prima facie negligence case. My attitude about the golfers is if the club wants to third-party them in and demand indemnification they can do that, but I don't have any obligation to go after the golfers because as an invitee the golf club owed me a duty of care.

Anyway, I've got nothing but time on my hands so I don't have any reluctance to pursue this in court, but I'm curious whether anyone on the forum has had a similar experience and what the result was.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Doesn't your insurance cover windscreens? Seems to me a lot simpler to just get it fixed and leave it at that. Why would you want to antagonize the membership at the club for something petty and accidental?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

xcubbies said:


> Doesn't your insurance cover windscreens? Seems to me a lot simpler to just get if fixed and leave it at that. Why would you want to antagonize the membership at the club for something petty and accidental?


ic12337: Sir, he wasn't brought up that way!

careful reader


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I've seen this happen before, and the matter was settled by the party responsible for the offending line drive. In fact, from what I recall, the golf club expressly stated it had to be settled between the parties and that they accepted no responsibility. Seemed reasonable to me. Its a golf club, these things happen. To avoid them, one could always park their car off-site and walk in.


----------



## McKay (Jun 13, 2005)

Beresford said:


> There were no warning signs posted, and I'm sure no one driving along that entry road would know there is a risk since you can't even see the course from the road.


But you knew you were driving into a golf course, right?



> Unfortunately for the club, I'm a lawyer, so I will be making a written demand on Tuesday (after Memorial Day), and if they don't agree to cover the cost of replacement of my windshield I will sue.


Do you suspect malice on the part of the golfer? If not, in your position I'd just chalk it up to the type of misadventure that sometimes happens when people get within a few miles of one another. Seems to me that if you can afford to play golf then you can afford to replace a windshield on the rare occasion that it's damaged without consuming court time and your club's resources.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

The issue and extent of liability in instances such as this differ from community to community. The prudent approach is to contact your insurance company, tell them exactly what happened, given them the name and contact information for the manager of the club, and let them handle it from there. This, unfortunately, is not that rare of an occurance and your insurance agent should know precisely how to proceed.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

you see this is where Lawyers get there bad reputation from ,granted I`m not a lawyer but If I was in the situation I would just put it down to one of those things that sometimes happens - a genuine accident,if I had driven through the golf course a second before or a second after would the ball have hit the car, If the player had struck the ball a little softer, harder,earlier,later,hooked the ball,sliced the ball etc.etc. would the ball have hit the car .
there is no blame to be placed here you are just as responsible for the accident occuring because you were driving your vehicle through the golf club grounds, I feel this is an instance where common sense should prevail.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beresford said:


> *Unfortunately for the club, I'm a lawyer,* so I will be making a written demand on Tuesday (after Memorial Day), and if they don't agree to cover the cost of replacement of my windshield *I will sue*......*Anyway, I've got nothing but time on my hands so I don't have any reluctance to pursue this in court,* but I'm curious whether anyone on the forum has had a similar experience and what the result was.


Perfectly scripted post as to why I have so little tolerance for so many lawyers.

I suggest you track down and sue every reader here that disagrees with you also. Do not forget the manufacture of the golf clubs, the golf ball, your auto company and most especially the windshield manufacturer as it should not have shattered so you have "glass everywhere". Also include the municipality for placing a road in such a perilous place and just to be safe, sue the engineering company that had the temerity for agreeing to design and implement such a dangerous endeavor. For good measure, seek personal damages against the project manager.

In fact, it would behoove you to sue me for thinking my current thoughts about you.

Edit: In retrospect, you should also launch a suit against the golfer's parents for siring such a person and I think just to be safe, the country of Scotland for being home to the game of golf.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Beresford said:


> This morning I was driving to a function held at a local golf resort. As I was driving along the private entrance road to the clubhouse, a golfer, apparently from the first tee, hit a line drive that went right through my windshield, shattering it. Fortunately, I was not injured and I was able to maintain control of my car, but there was glass everywhere.
> 
> The golf club is taking the position they have no responsibility, that I had to find the golfer and "settle" with him or her. I never saw either the golfer or the golf ball that hit me, since the shot came from above a ridge which separates the road from the course. One of the golf employees took me on a cart to the threesome who had obviously hit the shot (based on the club's chart of tee off times), but none would admit they did it. Like most of the golfers at this resort, they're also all tourists who will be gone from the city by this evening.
> 
> ...


While not on a golf course, I've had windshields cracked or shattered by road rocks, and it was usually obvious (by proximity) which truck or big rig caused it. I wasn't about to try and flag down 18-wheelers and start what could be an altercation; much easier to simply call my insurance agent who had the windshields replaced within a day and at very little expense ($50 deductible on my policy, and the repair companies even came out to my home to do the work). Took less than 15 minutes in each case.

IMO it's just "one of those things" in life. Roll with the punches and get on with it.


----------



## johnsamson (Sep 10, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Perfectly scripted post as to why I have so little tolerance for so many lawyers.
> 
> I suggest you track down and sue every reader here that disagrees with you also. Do not forget the manufacture of the golf clubs, the golf ball, your auto company and most especially the windshield manufacturer as it should not have shattered so you have "glass everywhere". Also include the municipality for placing a road in such a perilous place and just to be safe, sue the engineering company that had the temerity for agreeing to design and implement such a dangerous endeavor. For good measure, seek personal damages against the project manager.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it better myself. Everyone's a victim these days...


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Wow, I am amazed at these responses. Let me try it this way.

1. You had golfers on the course who didn't fess up to what they did.

2. You had a golf club that said it was my problem, not theirs, although it occurred on their property. In my state, at least, that means there is premises liability for accidents that occur on their property.

3. You had a commercial operation that is making thousands of dollars a day charging people to play on its course, engaging in an activity that is inherently dangerous, yet won't take any responsibility for harm that its activities cause to non-participants.

4. You had a driver on a road open to the public who had a golf ball smash through the front windshield while driving. You could have had a serious injury or death result from what happened.

5. You have a record of such things happening before, and nothing being done, such as putting up screening.

6. You have no warning signs posted. Nor would anyone know it was dangerous, because it is not within view of the course.

7. What if this was a rifle range and someone was killed by a stray bullet in a public area that was in the line of fire but there was no warning and no action taken to prevent people from being struck?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I don't believe the consensus is that you couldn't win if you were to sue, but that you shouldn't sue. Although it seems that runs counter to everything they teach in law school these days. Why not hand it to your insurance company and let them sort it out? Most insurance policies that I've purchased or considered purchasing in the past have had $0 deductible for broken windshields and broken windshield claims don't result in premium increases the following year. Of course, then you lose the opportunity to milk the golf course for "pain and suffering."


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Lawyers: beavers in the stream of life

paddling my own canoe


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Beresford said:


> Wow, I am amazed at these responses. Let me try it this way.
> 
> 1. You had golfers on the course who didn't fess up to what they did.
> 
> ...


The question for most members of this Forum (I presume) is what _you_ should do...not whether one _could_ construct a legal claim against one of the parties. While the number of voices heard from is rather limited, I would surmise that most would suggest that you indeed be compensated for your broken window and that the best course of action would be through your insurance carrier. I see nothing in your postings that suggests that your goal is to get either the golfers in question or the private club to take any action other than compensating you. If you are seeking such a remedy, your first course should be to make those remedial suggestions to the club.

As for whatever success you might have in pursuing a lawsuit, that would depend on the particular jurisdiction and facts beyond what you have provided. However, courts have repeatedly ruled that mis-hit balls are not a fully preventable occurance. Indeed, the risk of such golf shots is a basic part of the game [Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 N.Y.2d 729, 579 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1991); Rabinowitz v. Roland Stafford Golf School, 157 Misc.2d 458, 596 N.Y.S.2d 991 (Sup. Ct. Delaware Co. 1993)]. It is, they suggest, this very uncertainty that makes the game what it. Neumann v. Shlansky, 58 Misc.2d 128, 294 N.Y.S.2d 628 (Co. Ct. Westchester Co 1968), aff'd, 63 Misc.2d 587, 312 N.Y.S.2d 951 (App.Term 1970), aff'd, 36 A.D.2d 540, 318 N.Y.S.2d 925 (2d Dept. 1971). That does not mean there is no liability whatsoever. But (though case law does vary), golfers generally do not have a duty to warn persons who are away from the intended line of flight of the balls they hit. Thus, to show negligence, in most venues one would have to clearly demonstrate that the golfer failed to exercise due care...but such due care or responsibility would generally be limited to exercising such reasonable care in order to protect those (and their property) _within the intended flight of the ball_. Thus, whatever responsibility the golfer has to those within the intended flight of the ball, he would generally not be liable to individuals outside the boundaries of the golf course...even if they or their property were inadvertently hit by one of his balls. Indeed, in those cases of motorists being hit while driving by a golf course (which does, on occasion, happen), courts generally have reasoned that any warning would be ineffective in preventing such an accident.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

So that I am clear in understanding civil law, I'm at a golf course and an errant ball hits me in the head without warning, the golf course is liable? Is not willingly being at or near a golf course, show some acceptance that the potential of an errant ball is an inherent danger? Also, where is the course's liability if the ball was not hit with a club, but maybe thrown in anger by a golfer (that act is not what would be considered "normal" for a golf course)? There were no witnesses (or at least none who would come forward), so how do you know for certain the ball was actually struck by a club and not thrown?

My opinion is life happens, what is the point of suing? Oh and most firing ranges I've been to, don't have areas where people can walk or drive down range.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

medwards said:


> The question for most members of this Forum (I presume) is what _you_ should do...not whether one _could_ construct a legal claim against one of the parties. While the number of voices heard from is rather limited, I would surmise that most would suggest that you indeed be compensated for your broken window and that the best course of action would be through your insurance carrier. I see nothing in your postings that suggests that your goal is to get either the golfers in question or the private club to take any action other than compensating you. If you are seeking such a remedy, your first course should be to make those suggestions to the club.
> 
> As for whatever success you might have in pursuing a lawsuit, that would depend on the particular jurisdiction and facts beyond what you have provided. While caselaw varies, golfers generally do not have a duty to warn persons away from the intended line of flight. Moreover, courts have repeatedly ruled that mis-hit balls are not a fully preventable occurance. To show negligence, in most venues one would have to clearly demonstrate that the golfer failed to exercise due care. Indeed, his (or her) responsibility in this would generally be limited to exercising such reasonable care in order to protect those (and their property) _within the intended flight of the ball_. Moreover, whatever responsibility the golfer has to those within the intended flight of the ball, he would generally not be liable to individuals outside the boundaries of the golf course...even if they or their property were inadvertently hit by one of his balls. Indeed, in those cases of a motorists being hit while driving by a golf course (which does, on occasion, happen), courts generally have reasoned that any warning would be ineffective in preventing such an accident.


The question I asked was "who is liable?" What has bothered me is the callous disregard of this club for the safety of people whom it invites to use their facility. Their response has been, "it's not our problem," even though they have a golf course where a mis-hit drive off the first tee will go right into cars coming up the entrance road, even though the drivers can't even see the players and the course.

I should also make clear this is not a private golf club. It is a commercial operation that in addition to golfers has banquet facilities and banquet rooms it rents out for events (which is where I was going).

I am not talking about suing for pain and suffering or getting money, I am talking about the attitude of the club to the danger to the public and invited guests. The fact that other similar incidents have occurred previously (as I found out from talking to the employees) indicates they know it is a problem.

I have already sent an email to the course indicating they have an inherently dangerous situation by not shielding the road from the tee hits. And yes, I also have left a message with my insurance agent. But if the club will not admit responsibility or take action to correct the situation, I will take steps, even if it means suing. I don't want the next driver coming up that road to be seriously injured or killed.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> Oh and most firing ranges I've been to, don't have areas where people can walk or drive down range.


This is precisely the point.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have to think this is simply a trolling attempt. To be "driving along the private entrance road to the clubhouse" and act completely surprised an errant golf ball came your way is incredulous to me. I think you are just trying to get people such as myself to go on an anti-lawyer rant. Truly, there is no need for that. Your post lays out everything wrong with many attorneys much more eloquently than I could.

I can just see Beresford trying to register a class action libel suit against me now.

Say, is this you Beresford? https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beresford said:


> The question I asked was "who is liable?" What has bothered me is the callous disregard of this club for the safety of people whom it invites to use their facility.....I don't want the next driver coming up that road to be seriously injured or killed.


LOLOLOLOL If you had any idea how many times I have heard similar schtick from blood sucking ambulance chasers, you would know why I realize what a steaming pile of bullshyte that is.

Evidence in support, your original post:



Beresford said:


> Unfortunately for the club, I'm a lawyer, so I will be making a written demand on Tuesday (after Memorial Day), and if they don't agree to cover the cost of replacement of my windshield I will sue.


As usual, when you get called out for being a bullying bloodsucker, you get altruistic sounding. Stating your original position was a mistake, we all know your true motive; to be a bully and use your legal knowledge as a bludgeon. If your intent was merely to protect the public, you would have formulated your original post to state you plan to take legal action to force the golf course to protect the public through netting, warning signs, etc. Instead you just wanted money.

I rest me case. :aportnoy:


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Beresford said:


> The question I asked was "who is liable?"


Here's Rinaldo. I think you will find the circumstances familiar: In this case an errant golf ball struck the windshield of a passing motorist, shattering the glass and injuring the driver (Rinaldo). Mr. Rinaldo sued...and lost! "_The issue in this appeal is whether a golfer who accidentally misses the fairway and instead sends the ball soaring off the golf course onto an adjacent roadway can be held liable in negligence for the resulting injury. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the defendant golfers incurred no tort liability for what amounted to nothing more than their poorly hit tee shots._"


----------



## Il Canzoniere (Feb 19, 2006)

Wayfarer,

For a guy who's always whining about ad hominem attacks on the Interchange, you sure are doing a fine job of attacking Beresford, who did nothing more than make a legit post. What's your problem? The "steaming pile of bullshyte" is coming from you.

Warmest regards,


Ren


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beresford said:


> One of the golf employees took me on a cart to the threesome who had obviously hit the shot (based on the club's chart of tee off times),* but none would admit they did it. * Like most of the golfers at this resort, they're also all tourists who will be gone from the city by this evening....*My attitude about the golfers is if the club wants to third-party them in and demand indemnification they can do that, but I don't have any obligation to go after the golfers because as an invitee the golf club owed me a duty of care.*


Further evidence bolstering the argument your new desire to protect the public, as the impetus for your proposed suit, is pure and utter bullshyte. Why did you even attempt to accost the golfers? Did you think you could get them to post warning signs and/or have netting installed? No, your motives are plain to see, the following justifications were merely _ad hoc_ rescues to attempt to make yourself look less like the money grubbing legal bully you actually seem to be.

I am sorry to be so harsh, but really this is just too much.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think you are just showing why a lot of us lay people think lawyers are soulless bullies.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Il Canzoniere said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> For a guy who's always whining about ad hominem attacks on the Interchange, you sure are doing a fine job of attacking Beresford, who did nothing more than make a legit post. What's your problem? The "steaming pile of bullshyte" is coming from you.
> 
> ...


Insult me all you want just have some good logic in there somewhere. If your post lacks all vestiges of a real argument and is merely insult, I will probably point out your failure to present a cogent point, yes. I will also point out if someone ad homs after they complain about it. If you do not like my posts, merely place me on ignore.

So what law school did you go to? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*Moderator's Note*

I hesitate to put on my moderator's hat in a discussion in which I am participating, but I would be negligent if I didn't remind everyone of the very first rule of this Forum:

"1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators."

Please do not make it necessary for one of my esteemed colleagues to have to intervene.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

medwards said:


> I hesitate to put on my moderator's hat in a discussion in which I am participating, but I would be negligent if I didn't remind everyone of the very first rule of this Forum:
> 
> "1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators."
> 
> Please do not make it necessary for one of my esteemed colleagues to have to intervene.


Med:

I know that was being directed to me and I will reel things in.

However, if a description is accurate, is it really an ad hom or name calling? I mean, if a 90 year old lady owed me money on a loan, and I went and knee capped her, calling me a vicious sociopathic monster would be an apt description, no?

Again, I will reel in my adjectives, but I think I have made a good point. If you disagree, I will sue :icon_smile:


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Thank you for your cooperation. :icon_smile:


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Well, I dont see the need to call people out. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

I feel the sentiments of the original poster, in that going down a street with a hidden tee box, you do not expect to see a line drive coming at you. The law makes for some interesting propositions, and the fact that the golf course knew that this particular "hazard" resulted in blind shots coming at drivers of cars, well, that does not bode well for the course owners.

The prudent thing would be to turn it over to insurance. Things happen in life and while we might have recourse, sometimes, we are better off to just bite our tongue, whip out the wallet and incur the expense. I mean, after all, that is the sort of thing that we insure ourselves against in the first place, right?

I've had problems with cleaners and the like and I had my wife's winter coat ruined. Sure, I could have filed suit, and I hate the way those waiver/contract terms are on the back of the small slip that half the time the do not hand you, or the other half of the time, they have a sign up somewhere to the side that says "not responsible for ....."

Yes, the problem is that the errant driver of the golf ball did not own up and take responsibility for his tee shot and the damages caused. Would have been nice, but if people behaved like that, there would be fewer attorneys. Given the infrequency of such tee shots hitting cars, I doubt the golf course will put up screens or signs. Id make more productive use of my time and turn it over to insurance


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

I imagine driving and being struck by a golf ball, having the windshield shatter with glass everywhere would scare the helll out of me, even though neither me nor my passenger were not physically injured. I am very sympathetic to your fear. Also, I believe that I would imagine my concern for less fortunate drivers and passengers would motivate me to do all I could to avoid a repeated incident. 

I suggest that the approach of "compassionate and concerned victim" might further your more altruistic intentions. If you have them.

reformed snowballed thrower


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Gentlemen:

Unlike my esteemed colleague, I am not participating in this thread. I eagerly await civil gentlemanly discourse. 

In the alternative, I have gavel in hand and a brand-spanking-new supply of bespoke infractions at the ready.

Enjoy your evening.

Alexander Kabbaz
Senior Moderator


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

medwards said:


> Here's Rinaldo. I think you will find the circumstances familiar: In this case an errant golf ball struck the windshield of a passing motorist, shattering the glass and injuring the driver (Rinaldo). Mr. Rinaldo sued...and lost! "_The issue in this appeal is whether a golfer who accidentally misses the fairway and instead sends the ball soaring off the golf course onto an adjacent roadway can be held liable in negligence for the resulting injury. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the defendant golfers incurred no tort liability for what amounted to nothing more than their poorly hit tee shots._"


Thank you Medwards, for your cite to _Rinaldo_ (and other cases). I had looked at that case, but am not sure how applicable it is because it was restricted to the liability of the golfers. (A news story I looked at indicated the injured motorist had already settled out with the golf course.) In this case I don't think the problem is so much the golfers, but the golf course putting motorists in harm's way and then saying it's not their responsibility. I was very angered by the club's response to what happened, and I'm still angry.

I must admit, however, I have been more than a little surprised by the tone this whole thread has taken, and think it's probably best just to end the discussion where it is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beresford said:


> I must admit, however, I have been more than a little surprised by the tone this whole thread has taken, and think it's probably best just to end the discussion where it is.


Surprised at the tone? My god man, you told us all how you plan to use your JD to bully the golf course into giving you money as you were not happy with their reply to you and you have all the time in the world to badger them using the legal system. You set the tone! Did you expect accolades for your proposed actions?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Beresford said:


> Thank you Medwards, for your cite to Rinaldo (and other cases). I had looked at that case, but am not sure how applicable it is because it was restricted to the liability of the golfers. (A news story I looked at indicated the injured motorist had already settled out with the golf course.) In this case I don't think the problem is so much the golfers, but the golf course putting motorists in harm's way and then saying it's not their responsibility. I was very angered by the club's response to what happened, and I'm still angry. I must admit, however, I have been more than a little surprised by the tone this whole thread has taken, and think it's probably best just to end the discussion where it is.


Thank you, Beresford. I am sure that many understand your anger and appreciate your frustration. While I would never try to predict what a trial court might do, the idea that the proprietor of the land on which the course was located is liable while the individual who actually commited the act is not, may be a difficult sell. Again, case law varies depending on circumstances. But this discussion wasn't really about who -- if anyone -- might be liable for the damage to your car. Here's my personal assessment of why this discussion took the tone it did. First, you began by asking a question, but rather than waiting for a response, you put forward a strong and unequivocal position. There was nothing wrong in you doing so. But postings that take on a strong, strident advocacy tone almost always receive the same in response...while true inquiry tends to generate more open discussion and dialogue. Second. I think you can sense there is a fair amount of concern on this Forum and in society as a whole about the increasing use of the courts to resolve issues that can -- and perhaps should -- be settled elsewhere. Many participants on this Forum have experienced situations that are not totally unlike the one you described...a piece of gravel is thrown up into their windshield by a passing truck, a pothole causes a flat tire, a tree limb falls and shatters their window. While there possibly may be a tort in any of these instances, their first response is not to threaten legal action...it is to get the facts, work with one's insurance carrier, and try to find a fair and amicable settlement. While that might have been your intent, that is not the impression that some posters received. Here are some questions that might have been asked that might have generated a somewhat different conversation: what do you think the appropriate steps a golf course might take to safeguard visitors or passers-by? What should be the obligation of a business -- legal, moral, or as an effective business practice -- to compensate an individual for damage or injury on their property or as a result of activies taking place on it? What other courses of action -- aside from legal action -- might help prevent such occurances in the future...involving one's city council or zoning board? public relations and publicity? Again, there is nothing wrong with arguing your point, but one shouldn't be surprised when other participants argue back.


----------



## vonwotan (Mar 10, 2007)

Not taking one side or another I find this site interesting and a good source for discussion of lawsuits, liability and our courts.

https://cgood.org/


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Surprised at the tone? My god man, you told us all how you plan to use your JD to bully the golf course into giving you money as you were not happy with their reply to you and you have all the time in the world to badger them using the legal system. You set the tone! Did you expect accolades for your proposed actions?


 Attention Mod Squad: Do we have a bespoke infraction for not capitalizing the proper name of the deity?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Attention Mod Squad: Do we have a bespoke infraction for not capitalizing the proper name of the deity?


I left it lower case so I would not get infraction points for taking His name in vain. :icon_viking:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> I left it lower case so I would not get infraction points for taking His name in vain. :icon_viking:


Touché!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Take up tennis instead.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Whether Beresford sues or not, I see this as the proper opportunity to mobilize the public to campaign for safer golf balls. While using wiffle golf balls may not help improve handicaps they will ensure that such breaches of the public safety, as reported by Beresford, do not occur again. If acted upon promptly the public outcry could affect the national platforms of presidential candidates and have a bearing on the 2008 election. At the very least, manufacturers of golf balls will be compelled to find a gentler, more ecologically responsible ball. And it is not improbable that Beresford will escape the attention of the Nobel Committee for the 2007 Peace Prize. 

Never compromise on principle!


----------



## ccffm1 (Jul 31, 2005)

McKay said:


> ...without consuming court time...


True, why pester the court with tasks that have been assigned to it by law?



McKay said:


> ...and your club's resources.


So it is objectionable to consume the club´s means, but not to unnecessarily absorb the insurance company´s resources?


----------



## ccffm1 (Jul 31, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Perfectly scripted post as to why I have so little tolerance for so many lawyers.
> 
> I suggest you track down and sue every reader here that disagrees with you also. Do not forget the manufacture of the golf clubs, the golf ball, your auto company and most especially the windshield manufacturer as it should not have shattered so you have "glass everywhere". Also include the municipality for placing a road in such a perilous place and just to be safe, sue the engineering company that had the temerity for agreeing to design and implement such a dangerous endeavor. For good measure, seek personal damages against the project manager.
> 
> ...


Perfectly scripted post as to why I have so little tolerance for so many legal laymen.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.overlawyered.com/


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Make an insurance claim, let it go. Your policy probably has a subrogation clause or something and if it's appropriate, they will pursue. The golf club's attitude towards you was, in my opinion, pretty sorry, though. But their position is probably based in the fact that lawyers have made it so they can't even express regret without becoming entangled in the ******** that has become our legal system.

Do us all a favor and walk on.

Of course, it this had been a shooting range instead of a golf course, this would have been national news, Sarah Brady would have called a press conference, and Blooberg would have sent cars to every range in the country with orders to drive into the line of fire!


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

From the Pacific Research Institute:

_America's out-of-control legal system imposes a staggering economic cost of over *$865 billion every year*. This figure is 27 times more than the federal government spends on homeland security, 30 times what the National Institutes of Health dedicate to finding cures for deadly diseases, and 13 times the amount the U.S. Department of Education spends to help educate America's children._

_The authors of Jackpot Justice: The True Cost of America's Tort System calculated that the nation's tort system imposes a yearly "tort tax" of *$9,827 for a family of four* and raises health care spending in the U.S. by $124 billion. _

Their report is great reading: https://liberty.pacificresearch.org/bookstore/id.199/book_detail.asp

I believe the authors calculated the cost of "excess" litigation by adjusting for a basic societal amount of litigation, estimated by looking at the costs of other western systems. Thank you legal profession, that's 1 less vacation for my family this year!


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Gnatty: Sure the legal system is not perfect, but then again, medicine is not always able to treat all the sick. Everyone loves to point a finger at 'the system' until it hits home. Son gets arrested for driving a car too fast and the police find some marijuana under the passenger seat where his good friend, a known pothead, was sitting. Of course pot head denies it is his and so, police arrest both. Do you decide to let son plead guilty because he was after all guilty of associating with a pot head, and thus you save the 'system' the expense of having to prove his innocence and get on with the real criminals?

Scenario #2, your wife has a surgery and they botch it. She misses work for 6 months and undergoes 3 corrective surgeries. Insurance for the doctor offers to give her the salary she missed and cover the bills. State legislatures are grabbling with limiting pain and suffering. I guess, we just accept the offer because, after all, we have a burdgeoning legal system that wants to accomodate those that would deign to want money for their pain and suffering.

Sure, we have some lawyers that will sue anyone for anything, but I see very, very little of that, just as most doctors see very little of doctors trading drugs for sex.

We need to tighten up divorce laws. You married her, you stick with her. I dont care if she gambles or cheats, it must be something within you that caused it. You should have had more discussions before you had kids with her. So now we need to weigh who gets into court and just how bad the circumstances must be?


Maybe lawyers are to blame. But maybe lawyers help out. Anyone remember what it was like before Miranda rights? Ask someone who was arrested on suspicion of a crime back in the 40's and 50's. Ask people in Tennessee what it was like to be picked up, and on the hook as they say for 72 hours and then released, no charges. Oh, and no phone calls to anyone while they investigate? Sure, they dropped hints at what you were being investigated for, and I wonder how many people lost jobs, or marriages.

Come clerk for me for one week. Answer my phones and see the problems that Joe Average Guy calls about.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

This has been an interesting thread, in some ways. Now I can see both sides, one, just get the car fixed with insurance, but also, what if something more serious had happened. If motives are pure and a point is to be made, a point that is not self indulgent than I am all for it.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

What if the golf ball had pierced your windshield and struck your 8 year-old daughter in the forehead, rendering her mentally impaired for the rest of her life? 

Would any of you be screaming about the defective American legal system? How many of you would be frantically searching for the toughest, most successful lawyer you could find, eager to get YOUR portion of this "tort tax" to help pay for the life-long 24-hour nursing care your baby girl would need? 

It could just as easily have been your daughter on the receiving end of that golf ball as Beresford's unoccupied passenger seat. 

Simple logic should be enough to show that there is absolutely NO difference whatsoever between the golf club's liability as to this broken windshield and the club's liability as to this hypothetically brain-injured girl. The only difference is the amount of the damages. But when it comes to a windshield, the legal system is broken?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

On the one hand, yeah, you were in a golf club, golf balls are going to be a hazard. On the other, if the course is designed that an errant slice usually ends up on a driveway, then the club has some liability, especially if it's happened before. Getting hit by a golf ball when walking around the links is a known hazard, getting hit while pulling into the parking lot would be, to me at least, unexpected.

The elementary school I attended was right across the street from a golf course. It was a pretty busy street, the terminus of the now infamous "Eight mile" corridor, though when it hits Grosse Pointe it's known as Vernier. Every day a ball or two would end up bouncing across the street and end up on our playground. We'd go out at lunchtime and collect them to play with. 
The city was less than happy with this arrangement, especially after a couple of accidents. The course ended up altering an approach or two, and our supply of free golf balls promptly dried up. I don't recall any lawsuits involved, however, it's an anecdote of a course making modifications for safety purposes.

Then there was the time my car got hit with a golf ball from the St. Clair Shores country club while doing 70 on I-94...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gnatty8 said:


> From the Pacific Research Institute:
> 
> _America's out-of-control legal system imposes a staggering economic cost of over *$865 billion every year*. This figure is 27 times more than the federal government spends on homeland security, 30 times what the National Institutes of Health dedicate to finding cures for deadly diseases, and 13 times the amount the U.S. Department of Education spends to help educate America's children._
> 
> ...


Approximately the same number applies to America's annual defense spending, i.e. *$850 billion this year*. I wonder how many people who rail against the cost of "excess" litigation and attack America's tort system have spent as much time evaluating the need for a permanent shadow government in the U.S. and the *$100 trillion* that's been flushed down the toilet by the Pentagon since the end of WWII.

It's the job of judges and juries to decide whether *any* given lawsuit can proceed on its merits, and it's certainly not the job of corrupt legislators who're bought and paid for by corporate and special interests to "address" major problems in the U.S. (such as the current epidemic of medical malpractice, elimination of consumer protections and rights, unregulated corporate greed etc) by attacking the rights of Americans to seek compensation and damages for these atrocities in our justice system.

My favorite line in PRI's advertisement for their book is "the loss of output resulting from deaths due to excess liability". Anyone care to venture a guess what _that_ means?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> My favorite line in PRI's advertisement for their book is "the loss of output resulting from deaths due to excess liability". Anyone care to venture a guess what _that_ means?


I'm guessing that, for instance, a couple of planes fly into a couple of buildings, and the relatives of the poor souls who perished sue every company and governmental agency involved in running those buildings for boatloads of money, for not providing adequate anti-aircraft defenses or making their buildings airplane-proof or something. The companies and agencies shelling out the settlements suffer a "loss of output."

Don't get me wrong, they are entitled to some compensation, that's what life insurance is for.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ccffm1 said:


> Perfectly scripted post as to why I have so little tolerance for so many legal laymen.


Should I fear some reprisal litigation then? ic12337:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Cute to see all the attorneys banding together. Solidarity brothers! I like the pleas to people's pity and morals coming in too. However, that is not what this was about. It was stated very plainly and very simply, from chasing people on the golf course looking for a cheque writer to telling us how he does not care of the golf course "third parties" the golfers....after his monetary restitution.

Then comes the, "I'm doing it for the good of society" talk. I could deal with things with much less resentment if people merely had the honesty to come clean that they are looking for a pay day.

I once had an attorney threaten me with legal action for a patient that had sustained injuries from a fall. The problem was, the fall did not occur at my place, in fact, the fall occurred at the patient's abode and was the reason said patient was seeking care. I had to actually assign someone to provide this noble attorney with the EMT and ER paperwork documenting he was placed into the ambulance with the injuries and the entire ER stay showing there was no documentation of a second fall or further injuries. Not to be phased by the facts in the least, this paragon of public safety told me he was going to file a claim against our P&C coverage for the fall!

Are there good lawyers doing good things? Sure there are. Has the US legal system become a lottery jackpot though? Hard to argue it has not. I want me a pair of $65 million trousers!


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

memphislawyer said:


> Gnatty: Sure the legal system is not perfect, but then again, medicine is not always able to treat all the sick. Everyone loves to point a finger at 'the system' until it hits home. *Son gets arrested for driving a car too fast and the police find some marijuana under the passenger seat where his good friend, a known pothead, was sitting. Of course pot head denies it is his and so, police arrest both. Do you decide to let son plead guilty because he was after all guilty of associating with a pot head, and thus you save the 'system' the expense of having to prove his innocence and get on with the real criminals?*


First he shouldn't have been speeding, but I can overlook that becasue most of us speed. If his good friend is a pot head, I'm willing to bet they're friends for a reason, so there is a high probability the pot could have been his. If it wasn't his and he isn't a pot head, then he's foolish to hang out with a pot head and assume as his friend the pot head would take the rap. So he deserves what he gets.



memphislawyer said:


> *Scenario #2, your wife has a surgery and they botch it. She misses work for 6 months and undergoes 3 corrective surgeries. Insurance for the doctor offers to give her the salary she missed and cover the bills. State legislatures are grabbling with limiting pain and suffering. I guess, we just accept the offer because, after all, we have a burdgeoning legal system that wants to accomodate those that would deign to want money for their pain and suffering.*


This definitely is not the same thing we've been talking about. This is negligence and needs to be dealt with accordingly. I've been in this situation where I almost lost my wife over a doctor's misdiagnosis. We did talk to a lawyer about possible legal action and found that though we "knew" what he did was wrong, it was going to be very difficult to prove it. We didn't pursue it any further, more for the emotional wounds that needed to heal (we lost our first children during this incident).


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Cute to see all the attorneys banding together. Solidarity brothers! I like the pleas to people's pity and morals coming in too. However, that is not what this was about. It was stated very plainly and very simply, from chasing people on the golf course looking for a cheque writer to telling us how he does not care of the golf course "third parties" the golfers....after his monetary restitution.
> 
> Then comes the, "I'm doing it for the good of society" talk. I could deal with things with much less resentment if people merely had the honesty to come clean that they are looking for a pay day.
> 
> ...


I am not a lawyer yet I see why it may be important for the club to take some responsibility here. I know putting up netting would be ugly and probably not be effective, I know that golfers are not going to say, for the most part, that was my ball...I don't think the original poster is trying to get something for himself, and just because he is an attorney does not mean he is chasing ambulances, any more than my being a sales-professional means I am going to sell you something you do not need.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am not going to discuss this anymore but for anyone thinking a noble cause of public safety was the aim, please just read his first post. The fact someone chases golfers on the course should tell you putting up netting for public safety was as far from his mind as hitting someone's windshield was for the golfers. That was all justification after the initial, and I feel much more truthful, post.

Cheers


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

memphislawyer said:


> Gnatty: Sure the legal system is not perfect, but then again, medicine is not always able to treat all the sick. Everyone loves to point a finger at 'the system' until it hits home. Son gets arrested for driving a car too fast and the police find some marijuana under the passenger seat where his good friend, a known pothead, was sitting. Of course pot head denies it is his and so, police arrest both. Do you decide to let son plead guilty because he was after all guilty of associating with a pot head, and thus you save the 'system' the expense of having to prove his innocence and get on with the real criminals?
> 
> Scenario #2, your wife has a surgery and they botch it. She misses work for 6 months and undergoes 3 corrective surgeries. Insurance for the doctor offers to give her the salary she missed and cover the bills. State legislatures are grabbling with limiting pain and suffering. I guess, we just accept the offer because, after all, we have a burdgeoning legal system that wants to accomodate those that would deign to want money for their pain and suffering.
> 
> ...


Good points all, but the publication I was referring to relates to the cost of the tort system, not the criminal justice system, so your first example is not necessarily the most applicable.

Second, the study measures the excess cost of the US tort system. That means that unless we assume that European/Canadian/Australians who suffer under the second scenario receive no damages for the botched surgery, the US system still has an excess cost. For example, if the average (European/Canadian/Australian) sufferer of botched surgery receives a $1MM damage award, is it necessarily more fair that the US sufferer receives $100MM? The $99MM is considered (if I am reading the study correctly) the "excess" cost of the US system.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

I dont see the attorneys ganging up. I dont even know them. I also disagree with the original poster's first post, that is to send a demand letter. Id turn it over to insurance from the getgo. SO where is this banding up.

As to the pothead situation, sure, he gets what he deserves, but in my scenario, as his father, are you really going to leave him on his own on this one, or try to keep this off his record? My clients' usually response is for me to try to keep it off a criminal record. 

Attorneys are not a homogenious group. Defense attorneys and Plaintiff's attorneys differ and have their own organizations within the bar.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Gnatt, I do beleive economics needs to play a role in litigation. Sometimes, I counsel clients who are sued on matters less than $1000 that they should negotiate without me. I mean, my fee will be at least $500 and they will have some exposure, and they can settle sometimes for the $500 AND HAVE NO EXPOSURE.

There are abuses in our system, Plaintiff's, Defendants and even prosecutors (anyone keep up with Nifong?) Ask any defense attorney and they will tell you that it is a battle sometimes getting discovery from the prosecutor. Think of your kid being one of the Duke players?

I dont try to change society. Im not into the Miranda or the types of cases that get into the federal system and make changes. I represent people, and I try to help them in their circumstances. I think it is the collective group effort that can help society.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Yes, I think criminal lawyers, both prosecution and defense, are crucial to our system. I would never dispute that. What bothers me, and what seems to bother most Americans, are the examples like the $67MM trousers guy who is putting a dry cleaner out of business because he wouldn't accept $12,000 or whatever the dry cleaners offered him to settle his grievance over lost pants! I know he does a disservice to all in the legal profession, but it seems that these examples are getting more and more common.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Having volunteered to moderate this thread, I don't suppose I can ask for a vote on "who's for tort reform?", can I? :devil:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Having volunteered to moderate this thread, I don't suppose I can ask for a vote on "who's for tort reform?", can I? :devil:


I am dead against it! Can you imagine what dry cleaners would get away with if someone was not there to defend the public good to the tune of $65 million?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

What if that golf ball had left a mark on a bespoke shirt??


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Are you saying that the ball went through the windshield? I mean, safety glass is not the easiest thing to break. I've seen baseball sized hail shatter, but not go through the window. I used to be a volunteer firefighter, and we often had to cut across the windshield at auto accidents...not an easy task. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but safety glass is pretty tough glass.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Are you saying that the ball went through the windshield? I mean, safety glass is not the easiest thing to break. I've seen baseball sized hail shatter, but not go through the window. I used to be a volunteer firefighter, and we often had to cut across the windshield at auto accidents...not an easy task. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but safety glass is pretty tough glass.


Agreed. Sounds defective.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Are you saying that the ball went through the windshield? I mean, safety glass is not the easiest thing to break. I've seen baseball sized hail shatter, but not go through the window. I used to be a volunteer firefighter, and we often had to cut across the windshield at auto accidents...not an easy task. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but safety glass is pretty tough glass.


I've had the previously undamaged rear window of my car shatter in pieces when it was closed with normal force. Not struck by anything, it just seemed to spontaneously/coincidentally disintegrate.

-glass breaker


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

tabasco said:


> I've had the previously undamaged rear window of my car shatter in pieces when it was closed with normal force. Not struck by anything, it just seemed to spontaneously/coincidentally disintegrate.
> 
> -glass breaker


I may be wrong, but I don't believe rear and side windows are made of safety glass. Actually, I know that the side windows are not. They shatter pretty easily with a window punch. 
btw, did you own a Passat? Older Passats had this problem.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't believe rear and side windows are made of safety glass. Actually, I know that the side windows are not. They shatter pretty easily with a window punch.
> btw, did you own a Passat? Older Passats had this problem.


 Toyota.

-*mostly* in love with 'em


----------



## ccffm1 (Jul 31, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> First he shouldn't have been speeding, but I can overlook that becasue most of us speed. If his good friend is a pot head, I'm willing to bet they're friends for a reason, so there is a high probability the pot could have been his. If it wasn't his and he isn't a pot head, then he's foolish to hang out with a pot head and assume as his friend the pot head would take the rap. So he deserves what he gets.


Did I understand you correctly? Are you implying that Beresford should not seek damages for his shattered windshield, but prosecution of an innocent is fine with you? That would be a remarkable comprehension of law.


----------



## ccffm1 (Jul 31, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Should I fear some reprisal litigation then?





Wayfarer said:


> Cute to see all the attorneys banding together


Case of "prosecution mania", huh? ;-)



Wayfarer said:


> I once had an attorney threaten me with legal action for a patient that had sustained injuries from a fall. The problem was, the fall did not occur at my place, in fact, the fall occurred at the patient's abode and was the reason said patient was seeking care. I had to actually assign someone to provide this noble attorney with the EMT and ER paperwork documenting he was placed into the ambulance with the injuries and the entire ER stay showing there was no documentation of a second fall or further injuries. Not to be phased by the facts in the least, this paragon of public safety told me he was going to file a claim against our P&C coverage for the fall!


So this is what has caused it?



Wayfarer said:


> I am not going to discuss this anymore but for anyone thinking a noble cause of public safety was the aim, please just read his first post. The fact someone chases golfers on the course should tell you putting up netting for public safety was as far from his mind as hitting someone's windshield was for the golfers. That was all justification after the initial, and I feel much more truthful, post.


People aren´t that one-dimensional. The fact that Beresford is seeking damages as a primary goal doesn´t rule out the possibility that he is concerned about the safety aspects.

Some years ago I had to get a nose job. I went to a Rhinoplasty specialist, who screwed it up in a spectacular fashion. I was aware of the fact that this kind of surgery isn´t always crowned with success, so it would have been perfectly acceptable for me if the cosmetic surgeon had told me up front why it hadn´t worked out. But instead he told me over the course of several month what a great job he had done on me and how deeply grateful I should be. Until I decided to see a colleague of his. Did I sue? No. Did I lose my confidence in the medical fraternity? Certainly not. Why? As I know that all kinds of people make all kinds of mistakes. I surely had my share of it. But I still believe that someone who has suffered a loss is entitled both legally and morally to seek recourse if he chooses so without being thought of as a greedy person.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ccffm1:

No, that was just one example of literally hundreds. It came to mind due to the attorney wanting to file a claim under the organization's P&C coverage for a fall that did not occur on the organization's property. In the last several years I have collected three file cabinent drawers of spurious legal claims. Each one requires many man hours with notification to our insurance carrier, a reserve set aside for the case, investigation, discussion with in-house if needed, etc. Again, I am sure there are good attorneys out there doing good work. My work life however is full of med-mal guys looking for the litigation lottery, facts be damned.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

On review, I think the golfball in question was probably out of spec (compression). This would explain both the errant drive and the safety-glass defeating capabilities of this *unusual* golfball. If you still have the golf ball, can prove it is indeed the ball that struck your vehicle, and have kept it in compliance with all evidence handling protocols and protected it from air, sun, water and all other agents that may alter the composition of the golf ball, it should be analyzed by a certified golf equipment testing facility for material defects. Please enclose a SASE and a blank check when you submit the ball for testing. Obviously, if the ball is out of spec than neither the golfer, the course is liable, but the golf ball manufacturer. In that case you will need to provide a golf ball manufacturing expert witness to inspect and report on their manufacturing facility - probably overseas.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

*Next time when driving around a golf course*

Keep your windows rolled down a bit so you can hear the "Fffooouuurrrrr"

Might have sidestepped this whole incident. 
jk

My father was driving down a main road at about 50-60 mph in a new Ferrari Testarossa many many years ago when the same thing happened to him. Stray golf ball hit and cracked the windshield. Scared the shyte out of him if i remember correctly.

MrR


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Most of the lawyers I know, particularly plaintiffs' lawyers, spend a lot more time trying to dissuade potential clients from litigating than the reverse.

There is a huge range between situations where the injury is small and the burdens of pursuing litigation would outweigh the potential gain, and situations where the injury was so great that it is important to litigate the case even if it's a difficult, expensive case to do.

There are some good reasons to think that the golf course is liable. First, the plaintiff could argue that the premises were negligently designed, constructed, and maintained, and that this is what led to the smashing of the windshield. This is particularly true in light of the fact that there were previous similar incidents, with apparently no efforts made to protect drivers lawfully on the driveway from the known hazard. Second, although the driver knew he was going onto a golf course, there was apparently no notice to him that he was placing himself in an area in which he was likely to be hit by a golf ball, and there is no showing that he assumed the risk (as you do, for instance, when you go to a baseball game--read the fine print on your ticket). 

If this were a case with significant personal injuries I would probably counsel the OP to sue the golf course, even if it might be a hard case to win.

In this case, since he can get the windshield replaced, possibly all but a deductible, by his own carrier, I would probably leave it at that.


----------

