In an article published yesterday, CARDINAL NEWS published the story of a family seeking help from the Village of Arlington Heights at a June 3, 2024 Village Board Meeting, which resulted in ineffective assistance from the village. In fact, the mayor of Arlington Heights, in his leadership role, implied an incorrect legal concept that the homeowners who moved into a property adjacent to the Rolling Green Country Club golf course assumed the risk to their safety and their property from errant golf balls when they chose to move to their address on Waterman Avenue in Arlington Heights. Their property, owned less than one year, is located across the street from the Rolling Green Country Club golf course at the northwest corner of Oakton Street and Waterman Avenue, just north of the golf course.
In fact, the assumption of risk for errant golf balls is on the golf course owner, according to the courts.
It’s unknown if Mayor Thomas Hayes took this cue from a pre-board meeting discussion with Randy Recklaus or other people; but analysis of social media comments on two CARDINAL NEWS Facebook posts that shared yesterday’s article indicate that many people agreed with the incorrect target assigned for assumption of risk by Mayor Hayes. The comments reacting to the article about the board meeting that criticized the family’s decision to move near a golf course added insult to injury. Some commenters’ spite toward the homeowners was palpable, and their sentiment was incorrect. Even some commenters from the public safety sector, who one might expect would be more compassionate and understanding of the risks regarding the potential personal injury, decided that the assumption of risk was on the homeowner.
Here are a few examples of criticism the homeowners faced online (many comments were accompanied by laughing emojis) …
“You bought a house on a golf course, what did you think would happen?”
— Jeff Bucolla (an employee of the West Chicago Fire Department)
“I don’t know what they want but this is ridiculous! Most golf courses have roads nearby and houses, it’s a risk. Move I guess is the solution”
— Kathy Lucke Stachura
“Didn’t you know there was a golf course there when you bought your house? Duh”
— Marie Smith
“Why should the village help? They chose to live there.”
— Brad Frieburg (a Public Safety Telecommunicator at the Northwest Central Dispatch System 9-1-1 center that serves the Rolling Green Country Club property and the property of the family in dispute with Rolling Green)
“You moved into a house by the golf course. Sorry, deal with it.”
— Erik Sealund
“Don’t buy a house by a golf course.”
— Kat Jett
“These clowns should just sit and enjoy back yard which is not accessible to golf course. Who plays out in front yard? Go move back where you came from”
— Robert Johnson
The mayor of Arlington Heights, a practicing attorney who represents business defendants in toxic tort litigation involving asbestos exposure, misled the homeowners and the public with inaccurate legal information when he took the position that the homeowners assumed the risk of having their property or persons on their property struck by golf balls. Being a defender of personal injury cases, one would expect that Mayor Hayes would be aware of the personal injury liability facing golf course owners allowing errant golf balls to extend to adjacent properties. Mayor Thomas Hayes misled the public at the board meeting on June 3, 2024 by questioning the decision of the homeowners to move next to a golf course. The following statement by Hayes implied that the homeowners should have known better than to move next to a golf course (because they assume the risk). He definitely did not tell the homeowners that the assumption of risk was on the Rolling Green Country Club, or that the owners of the golf course would be the at fault (liable) party in the case of a personal injury accident or even a nuisance.
Mayor Hayes: ” … and unfortunately you knew you were moving close to a golf course?”
In reality, homeowners in properties adjacent to golf courses do not assume the risk. Owners of golf courses do.
According to legal precedents, residents that live or move adjacent to a golf course do not assume the risk to themselves, their visitors, or their property just because the golf course exists near their home or existed there before they moved into their home.
According to the National Club Association (an organization dedicated to advancing the legislative, legal and regulatory interests of private clubs throughout the United States), individuals on property adjacent to a golf course generally have not been held to assume the risk absent specific circumstances. For example, “Courses and course architects have been found liable (or paid settlements) under theories of negligent design and similar theories. Some potential risks can be avoided by not making an existing situation worse. For example, extensive tree removal may increase the number and velocity of balls striking persons or property beyond the prior tree line barrier.”
“This is ridiculous- and I highly doubt that particular hole , with that tree line, they had ‘dozens’ (of golf balls)
— Jeannie Bolash, retired Public Safety Telecommunicator Northwest Central Dispatch System 9-1-1 Center
A motorist, a motorcyclist, a jogger or pedestrian traveling on a roadway near a golf course also does not assume the risk of being hit by an errant projectile golf ball.
“In 2009, a woman in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, was driving down a road adjacent to a golf course when a golf ball hit her windshield and caused the glass on the driver’s side to shatter. The driver was sprayed with shattered glass. The club had recently begun allowing public play, which allegedly resulted in increased errant shots. Local police and town officials stated there had been several incidents of balls leaving the course. In this case, a repeated history of balls leaving the club’s property could be evidence of poor design or that the club knowingly put the public at risk. The argument could be made that the club knew or should have known that there was a risk to drivers on the roadway adjacent to the club’s property, and drivers adjacent to club property do not assume the risk of errant shots.”
— National Club Association/Private Club Liability Issues: A Look at ErrantGolf Balls and Lightning
Even when an errant golf ball strikes within their property, country clubs can even be held liable.
“A man attending a golf tournament was on the practice putting green when he was struck by a golf ball hit from the nearby driving range. The injury to his neck caused a massive stroke, leaving the golfer unemployable and in a wheelchair. The golf course settled for $7.5 million after two days of trial. The plaintiff alleged that the golf course operators were well aware that errant golf balls regularly landed on this putting green. Defendants countered that the design of the practice facility was similar to many other clubs and that golfers assumed the inherent risk of being hit by a golf ball. Defendants also alleged that there was no previous record of injury at the golf course. Again, a repeated history of shots being misdirected to a location where golfers regularly congregated and would not anticipate incoming tee-shots could be evidence the course failed to maintain safe premises.
— National Club Association/Private Club Liability Issues: A Look at ErrantGolf Balls and Lightning
Therefore, lack of actual previous golf ball projectile injuries is not an effective defense. The awareness of repeated errant golf ball shots at a particular location presents a liability to the golf course owner.
“Liability can arise due to evidence of repeated errant shots to the same location where screening is possible but not provided. A woman standing on the deck of a golf course clubhouse in Illinois was hit in the head by an errant golf ball. A jury awarded her $32,132 (Prochnow v. El Paso Golf Club ). In that case, the plaintiff alleged that agents and employees of the golf club were well aware that the specific area of the clubhouse deck was repeatedly hit with errant golf balls and that guests were unprotected from shots from the 7th tee box. The jury noted that the need for screening, fencing or other barriers was reasonably foreseeable to the defendants.”
— National Club Association/Private Club Liability Issues: A Look at ErrantGolf Balls and Lightning
Lack of awareness does mean these type of golf ball injuries aren’t occurring, either. One Facebook commenter mentioned “there are a ton of golf courses and I don’t see an over abundance of deaths from Golf balls in the news!”
According to Downtown LA Law Group in Los Angeles, California, every year thousands of individuals are struck by fast moving golf balls in public golf courses and country clubs across the country. Though most of the injuries that people suffer are minor, some individuals suffer grievous and in some cases life threatening injuries.
The National Club Association advises that errant golf balls have been a source of potential liability for golf facilities around the country for many years. When struck by a golf club, the golf ball is projected at a high speed with a high degree of uncertainty for the landing location.
Courts recognize this inherent risk, and in published appellate decisions through the years have developed guidelines for when liability arises from errant golf balls, according the National Club Association.
The vast majority of errant golf ball cases don’t make the news because the cases are settled before or during trial, or they end when the judge or jury decides the case. There is no published legal opinion explaining the result for most of these lower court cases.
Cardinal Emergencies lol this is ridiculous there are a ton of golf courses and I don’t see an over abundance of deaths from Golf balls in the news! Scammers trying to get rich off others! I these bubble People Should stay indoors! Obviously not golfers, curious if any what sports do they play
— Kathy Lucke Stachura
Cases might only be published in the news after an appeal in a higher court, which means the case was first decided by a judge or jury, or that a judge entered an order in the case before judgment, and then the losing party appealed the decision. Then the case goes to a higher court, and the news media might pick it up. Also, some major law firms might publish cases in the news section of their official website.
Keeping it private and out of court: Plaintiff’s and defendants in disputes and their insurance companies rely on the principles outlined in the published court opinions to decide how to address injuries and claims such as those resulting from errant golf balls, and then often resolve the case without litigation (ie, without going to court).
Country Clubs also have an interest in keeping golf ball injuries out of the news because it is bad for business. Country clubs have influential people as members, such as local government politicians, trustees, council members, and police chiefs, who can order a news story suppressed.
The laws addressing injuries resulting from an errant golf ball vary from state to state, according to the National Club Association. The general rule historically has been that individuals who come on to the golf course are assuming the risk of the possibility of injury on the golf course property. However, the National Club Association explains that individuals on property adjacent to the golf course generally have not been held to assume the risk absent specific circumstances. In other words, the homeowner on the adjacent property should not be blamed for buying a house near a golf course and getting injured by doing so. The owner of the golf course is liable for errant golf balls striking people at adjacent properties.
According to the Downtown Los Angeles Law Group, there are several ways to establish liability in a golf ball injury incident. At fault (liable) parties commonly associated in such accident include the following …
1. The owners and operators of the golf course for failure to properly maintain course and or failure to properly warn of the high risk of golf ball injuries in certain areas of the course. Failure to provide for proper netting of the golf course so as to prevent golf balls from leaving the property.
2. The architects and designers of the course for faulty design resulting in an increased probability that a golf ball would strike an unsuspecting individuals in the golf course and outside the golf course.
3. The golfers themselves – if they knew or should have known of the presence of an individual in an area they targeted or directed their golf shot.
Downtown Los Angeles Group Accident and Injury Attorneys noted the following common injuries resulting from being struck by a golf ball …
Traumatic Brain Injury from golf ball impact to the head
Cracked and crushed skull and skull fractures
Broken nose and other facial fractures
Ocular injuries resulting in the loss of eyesight
Minor to moderate bruising
In yesterday’s article, CARDINAL NEWS reported worst case scenario injuries that included ruptured eyeballs with loss of sight and possible surgical removal of an eyeball, ruptured testicles and possible surgical removal of a testicle, and today we introduced a case of blunt force trauma to the neck with a resulting major cerebral stroke and disability.
Downtown Los Angeles Group Accident and Injury Attorneys noted the following compensation available for victims – recovery for victims of golf course injuries and errant golf ball injuries …
All medical and rehabilitation expenses
All future medical care
Pain and suffering
Emotional trauma
Economic damages including loss of wages and future loss of income
Loss of consortium (loss of ability of the victim to provide love and support to their family)
Punitive Damages
RELATED NEWS …
Get updates from The Cardinal ALL NEWS FEEDS on Facebook. Just ‘LIKE’ the ‘Arlington Cardinal Page (become a fan of our page). The updates cover all posts and sub-category posts from The Cardinal — Arlingtoncardinal.com. You can also limit feeds to specific categories. See all of The Cardinal Facebook fan pages at Arlingtoncardinal.com/about/facebook …
Help fund The Cardinal Arlingtoncardinal.com/sponsor
