Ball from Golf Course Cracked Windscreen

Ponsonby on 02/06/2025 - 20:04
Last edited 02/06/2025 - 21:11 by 1 other user

Driving late today past a Sydney golf course, a ball came over the wire fence and cracked the windscreen. We did not see who hit the ball but went to the golf course just as they were closing the office - while they were non committal about liability, they handed over a public incident reporting form.

There are lots of online comments about golf courses denying liability or delaying or refusing reimbursement, and of people having to resort to xCAT to get reimbursed by the golf course if they do not want to claim on their comprehensive insurance

Any advice from others who have experienced this would be appreciated - we do not have a lot of time to fight the golf course or their insurers but would prefer not to claim on our comprehensive motor insurance policy (which includes no excess windscreen claims). This is because of the inevitable effect a claim will have on future premiums, even in no fault circumstances.

Automotive Windshield

Comments

  • BathRobe on 02/06/2025 - 20:09
    +25

    Weird the club even mentioned not being liable. They all take out insurance for these exact circumstances. Have another chat to them tomorrow - escalate up with the admin staff, chances are the pro-shop staff might not be across it.

      • MS Paint on 02/06/2025 - 21:09
        +11

        Yes I'm very familiar with excess. There is no excess with windscreen policies with RACV and I assume most other insurers. I've claimed at least 10 windscreens and never paid an excess or seen a premium hike outside the normal annual increments.

        our comprehensive motor insurance policy (which includes no excess windscreen claims)

        FFS.

        • jv on 02/06/2025 - 22:45
          +13

          or seen a premium hike

          RACV is the premium hike.

        • Drakesy on 03/06/2025 - 12:32
          +3

          I've claimed at least 10 windscreens

          This raises so many questions. Does the insurance company not turn around and go this guy is rorting us hard.

          • MS Paint on 03/06/2025 - 13:18

            @Drakesy: All the claims are done online and legit claims. Never asked for evidence but I have all the date stamped photos if they want them.Possibly because of my regional address it isn't challenged.

            I also have 6 other policies with RACV and am a gold member if that makes any difference to their algorithm.

            • ATangk on 03/06/2025 - 15:36

              @MS Paint: I hate driving regional highways for this reason. Never know when that roadtrain will kick up a rock.

              And 6 policies means nothing to them, though you probably won't get a better deal elsewhere as the cheaper companies only like to work with city folk.

              • Pussqunt on 03/06/2025 - 18:16

                @ATangk:

                Never know when that roadtrain will kick up a rock.

                Usually when you overtake and they decide to ride the centre line because you didn't wait for them to signal you, or a partially completed non signposted resurfacing left for a month on the on coming lane.

        • lint on 04/06/2025 - 12:44

          Agreed, OP mentions they have no excess windscreen claims on their policy. You usually pay extra for this already, the path of least resistance is to make such a claim and move on.

          If you do want the extra hassle though, then nobody's stopping you from pestering the golf club instead. You could even try to exhaust that path and resort to insurance if there's no satisfactory resolution.

        • Vater Woods on 04/06/2025 - 20:08

          Insurer increase your next year premium even if not your fault. Get updated, its not 10 years ago, both with AAMI and RACV, stop spreading false information.

          FFS

      • brendanm on 02/06/2025 - 21:41
        +1

        which includes no excess windscreen claims

      • Protractor on 02/06/2025 - 22:05
        +1

        I live it

    • 87percent on 02/06/2025 - 21:02

      Don’t you need to specifically have that listed on your policy? Like a rental car if you get into an at fault accident

      • MS Paint on 02/06/2025 - 21:10
        -3

        Yes you do and I do just like the OP does. It's about $100 extra per year and I get an $800 windscreen out of it.

        • jv on 02/06/2025 - 22:48
          +1

          It's about $100 extra per year and I get an $800 windscreen out of it.

          Which is a good reason why for most other people it would not be worth it as they would just be subsidising your insurance.

          • MS Paint on 02/06/2025 - 23:02

            @jv: I thank them for their service.

  • simplystu on 02/06/2025 - 20:12
    +2

    @Ponsonby …

    we do not have a lot of time to fight the golf course or their insurers but would prefer not to claim on our comprehensive motor insurance policy (which includes no excess windscreen claims).

    I think you have your answer.
    Claim on car insurance - be done with it.

    Where I live - many years ago used to be a golf course - right next to main drive to estate entrance.

    My car got hit by a wayward golfball (back in the day before dashcams).

    Immediately went to reception - of golf course … And basically they walled me.

    Despite driving range actually in direction of road +++ no high fences to stop wayward golfballs.

    Golf course no longer exists … Now have to put up with neighbours with constant barking dogs + loud music … Argh.

    • JIMB0 on 02/06/2025 - 20:38
      -3

      Now have to put up with neighbours with constant barking dogs + loud music

      Renters?

      • simplystu on 02/06/2025 - 23:53
        +1

        if only … sorry but no.
        actually the social housing : (6 houses in street) == almost no issues (aside from 1-2 times a year of disturbances at 3am in morning).

        ppl with barking dog - have been living there for 10+ years … ppl own house - but are FIFO.
        as to loud (doof doof) music … why can't science invent an EMP to wipe out their systems at a certain time of night ???

        • JIMB0 on 03/06/2025 - 07:09
          -2

          Cashed up bogans by the sounds of it. You know that you can call 000 and report the loud music. Just call every time, eventually the cops will fine them and it should stop. As for the dog you'll have to go through council.

          • Euphemistic on 03/06/2025 - 07:21
            +2

            @JIMB0: Except dont call 000. Find the num er for the police assistance line. Loud music is NOT an emergency.

            • JIMB0 on 03/06/2025 - 08:15
              -7

              @Euphemistic: 000 is for when police attendance is required. The police assistance line will just transfer you through to 000 if you call.

              • Euphemistic on 03/06/2025 - 10:27
                +3

                @JIMB0: Better for the police assistance line to make that call rather than tie up emergency 000. Its not an emergency.

                • JIMB0 on 03/06/2025 - 11:19
                  +2

                  @Euphemistic: You'll just be wasting everyone's time that way. I called the police assistance line to report a dumped stolen car. After taking all the details, then placing me on hold to talk to his supervisor I got transferred to 000 to repeat all the same details. I just call directly now.

                  Report a noisy neighbour or loud party
                  Victoria Police and members from your local council can respond to noise complaints.
                  To make a report contact your local council.
                  For noise issues outside of business hours, such as loud parties, call Triple Zero (000).

                  https://www.police.vic.gov.au/unreasonable-noise

                  • Muppet Detector on 03/06/2025 - 15:29
                    -1

                    @JIMB0: May I suggest that you make double sure that you are interpreting that police link correctly?

                    I know it says call 000 for noise complaints, but that comes with a disclaimer. I am sure that it doesn't actually say what you think it does.

                    You need to look at other links within your link and read the document as a whole including what steps must be made through council re noise complaint and at what point in the process you are permitted to continue your complaint using the 000 resources.

                    I bring this to your attention because it is actually a criminal offence to improperly use an emergency call service.

                    The penalty for improperly using an emergency call service in Australia is a maximum of three years in jail AND/OR $37,800 fine if dealt by DC.
                    In a local court, it's 1 year imprisonment and $12,600 fine.

                    All of this is outlined in section 474.18 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

                    Simply put, An offence takes place where a person makes a call to an emergency service number other than for the purpose of reporting an emergency.

                    • JIMB0 on 03/06/2025 - 18:18

                      @Muppet Detector: I've never even been told off for calling 000, let alone fined. They take the details and send someone out. If you call the local station they direct you to 000 as they don't know where the patrolling cars are and thus can't dispatch jobs to them, the same goes for the police assistance line.

                      But sure, call the assistance line just to be safe.

              • borrisz0r on 03/06/2025 - 21:56

                @JIMB0: Umm no, it's not.

                Don't spread this crap. emergency services have actual emergencies to worry about.

          • Muppet Detector on 03/06/2025 - 14:52

            @JIMB0: In which state or territory is it ok to call OOO for a noise complaint?

            • Maxxjet on 03/06/2025 - 16:53
              +1

              @Muppet Detector: I am in NSW, and I called more than once to make noise complaint to 000 past midnight. The police operator took the details and dispatched police officers to attend the noisy parties on all occasions.

            • uncle-shauny on 03/06/2025 - 21:37
              +1

              @Muppet Detector: Victoria it definitely is, I have tried to call the non emergency number for a few things now including noise complaints and every time they transfer me to 000. I think there is only a small number of very specific things the non emergency number handles

  • Wiadro on 02/06/2025 - 20:13

    no, you will get no where.
    just add windscreen cover to your insurance and claim in a week or 3

    • MS Paint on 02/06/2025 - 20:15
      +3

      Why wait. Do it tonight.

      would prefer not to claim on our comprehensive motor insurance policy (which includes no excess windscreen claims).

      • Wiadro on 02/06/2025 - 20:24
        +7

        there was too much text to read till that part

  • BewareOfThe Dog on 02/06/2025 - 21:22
    +2

    Did you get the ball? DNA Test?

    • Switchblade88 on 02/06/2025 - 21:46
      +6

      Have to check if it's left or right.

      • BewareOfThe Dog on 02/06/2025 - 22:38
        -1

        Im talking about the golf ball. ;)

    • BillyG687 on 04/06/2025 - 20:19

      What if it hit a person walking on the footpath or someone on a bike? Does the Golf Course or the golfer get to wash their hands of any liability?

      • Protractor on 04/06/2025 - 20:31
        -1

        That depends on the insurance of the course, and the determination of the victim

  • jjjaar on 02/06/2025 - 22:58
    +1

    This is because of the inevitable effect a claim will have on future premiums, even in no fault circumstances.

    Why do you even have insurance if you’re only worried about premium costs?

    How much is your time worth chasing all this up outside of your insurance? Is it more than the possible increase?

  • Ponsonby on 02/06/2025 - 23:14
    -4

    No idea about the size of the premium increase the insurance company may impose - only that we saw a large increase after a previous no fault claim settlement.

    I tend to agree however with comments that putting up with an increased premium may be worth not having to navigate a dispute with the golf club. If we go that route, I do hope the insurance company chases up the club

    By the way I am aware that modern windscreens with sensors are much more expensive to replace and recalibrate than the older simple ones.

  • plmko on 03/06/2025 - 06:38
    -5

    If you have a good car then windscreen insurance is useless. Very unlikely they'll cover a genuine screen so you end up paying anyway.

  • timthetoolman on 03/06/2025 - 07:21
    +9

    Was it a Titleist?

  • djsweet on 03/06/2025 - 09:03
    +2

    Golf clubs are insured for this. It probably happens all the time. Likely just need to talk to the right person. I’d try again.

  • djones145 on 03/06/2025 - 09:27
    +3

    o
    o
    o
    o brien

    • Euphemistic on 03/06/2025 - 10:29
      +3

      Note: ozbargainers will call other windscreen suppliers first as obrien are typically more expensive.

      • djones145 on 03/06/2025 - 15:58

        yeah but damn they have a catchy tune!
        try getting that out of ur head

        u can replace it with
        let it go
        let it go

    • xuqi on 03/06/2025 - 11:18

      They are by far the most expensive in the business. Insurance companies also avoid them, unless there's no other choice….

    • milobob on 05/06/2025 - 07:03

      Nope. Don't use genuine windscreens which screw up the adas systems if newer cars

  • JimmyF on 03/06/2025 - 09:28

    we do not have a lot of time to fight the golf course or their insurers but would prefer not to claim on our comprehensive motor insurance policy

    What sort of car? How much is your windscreen worth?

  • Ponsonby on 03/06/2025 - 10:02
    +3

    A non original windscreen with similar features (rain sensing, acoustic, heads up display) is quoted at over $1100 plus fitting

    • Euphemistic on 03/06/2025 - 10:29

      Thats why you have windscreen cover.

  • Dollar General on 03/06/2025 - 10:10
    -5

    Your action is against the person who hit the golf ball.

    Play hardball with the golf course and they may cough up the money to make you go away

    • Protractor on 03/06/2025 - 10:39
      -1

      Surely as a part of local govt planning approval & regs all urban golf courses would have to have insurance for off course incidents like this?
      eg. What happens if a pensioner on a gopher gets clobbered? A stray golf ball is not exactly an act of god, or unforseen .

  • smartazz104 on 03/06/2025 - 10:23
    +1

    we do not have a lot of time to fight the golf course

    That's what your insurance is for.

    but would prefer not to claim on our comprehensive motor insurance policy (which includes no excess windscreen claims). This is because of the inevitable effect a claim will have on future premiums, even in no fault circumstances.

    Here's a secret; insurance companies will raise your premiums regardless. Might as well put it to use.

  • Koipanda on 03/06/2025 - 11:35

    Get 2-3 quotes for the windscreen replacement/repair. Add that to a letter of demand and send it to the golf's email address. If they don't reply then youre stuck between going through your insurance or repair it yourself.

  • tsunamisurfer on 03/06/2025 - 12:39
    -4

    Why would the golf course be liable?

    The person who hit the ball is liable, find and chase them.

  • pharkurnell on 03/06/2025 - 13:25
    +2

    How do you prove it was a golf ball… or from their club? And not a stone off a truck or another car?

    • Protractor on 03/06/2025 - 15:40

      OP wouldn't lie.

      • Ponsonby on 04/06/2025 - 16:27

        We have the ball.

        • Protractor on 04/06/2025 - 16:28

          Just go after them,then.Don't let them have the ball back till they 'play ball'.(pay up or at least acknowledge liability in writing).

        • Brick Tamland on 05/06/2025 - 10:04

          Throw it through the pro shop window and see how they like it.

  • happydude on 03/06/2025 - 14:11
    +3

    Golf courses have insurance for damage caused by their players and regularly pay out for damage.

    One I was at required that all members reported any balls that went off the course which in turn needed to be reported to the insurer. I assume this was to set the premiums.

    Fill out the form given and go in and ask to speak to the General Manager about it.

  • Muppet Detector on 03/06/2025 - 15:38
    -3

    If I parked my car somewhere and it got hit by a golf ball. If I could determine that I had parked beside a golf course, I would consider that if would be highly likely that I would get hit again the next time I parked there.

    For this reason, it would make sense to me that if I got hit by a golf ball parked at one location, I'd find somewhere else to park next time I'm near the same location.

    I mean, how many times does a person shove their hand into a lion's mouth to see if he'll bite it?

    Sure, you may not realise that huge vacant green land beside you is a golf course the first time you come across it, and accidentally park there, but as soon as you have confirmation that it is a golf course, why on earth would you park anywhere near it?

    • Protractor on 03/06/2025 - 15:42
      +1

      Using your logic, we wouldn't be allied to (slave to) America

      • Muppet Detector on 03/06/2025 - 15:51
        -1

        Could you please expand your logic? Be sure to use small words and short sentences so I may be able to understand.

    • star-ggg on 03/06/2025 - 15:46
      +1

      Does googlemaps have an "avoid road next to golf course" option?

      • Protractor on 03/06/2025 - 15:49
        +1

        No it has a "Breaker Morant" option.

        Shoot straight,ya bastards

  • Muppet Detector on 03/06/2025 - 15:49
    -2

    From my understanding of negligence laws, the golf course would only be liable for errant golf balls if they failed to implement any legislated frameworks, or, if those frameworks were installed within legal parameters and were in good condition and legal compliance etc, then there would likely be no liability.

    However, another layer will exist if, despite meeting any legal compliance requirements, if it can be shown that there is an ongoing failure about which the golf course is aware but fails to make reasonable and lawful attempts to correct or mitigate this harm, then they may be held liable in these circumstances.

    Other scenarios will exist where contributory negligence from several parties may exist just as the golf club may have no liability if they are operating within complete legal compliance.

    Eg. We have pool laws. If someone drowns, there is only negligence on the part of the pool owner if their pool does not meet legal compliance. Sure, a person is dead, but the pool owner is not liable/negligent.

    • Protractor on 03/06/2025 - 15:50
      +4

      I won't be (a) hiring you as a lawyer or (b) asking you to go apple shopping for me.

      • Muppet Detector on 03/06/2025 - 15:55

        Why would the laws around golf course be any different to those around any other areas of potential harm with regards to tort law?

        Besides, you can't hire me as anybody's lawyer. I'm not a lawyer.

        And buy your own apple.

      • happydude on 03/06/2025 - 15:57
        +3

        Yeah, no negligence liability unless some law was broken is wild legal theory.

        • Muppet Detector on 05/06/2025 - 10:56
          -1

          Well then, if you're invoking a moral obligation, wouldn't that by definition fall to the person who caused the ball to cause the damage?

          Somewhere though, a person really does need to take some responsibility for their own actions and realise just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

          A sensible person would usually attempt to avoid risk to harm, not recognise a potential risk and put themselves in that situation anyway, especially if they assume that someone else will be liable for blame and costs if foreseeable harm does occur.

          Parking next to a golf course isn't the alternative to sky diving for more risk adverse people.

          • Protractor on 05/06/2025 - 11:22
            +1

            @Muppet Detector: Testing testing 1-2 3

            oP wAS On a rOaD (in a moving car)
            Not parked, not sky diving.

            • Muppet Detector on 05/06/2025 - 11:37
              -1

              @Protractor: If OP was swimming in the ocean and he got bitten by a shark, to whom is he going to assign blame for that?

              Most people know that sharks hang around in the ocean. Similarly, most people should realise that there are golf balls (some of them moving) at golf courses.

              I just don't get why people automatically blame the golf course because they get hit with a golf ball.

              Liability just doesn't work like that.

              I recognise that you do think this, but don't mock me because you're wrong.

              This thread simply doesn't contain enough information to determine who/what is liable but it is very unlikely that liability lies with the golf course unless they breached some legally defined duty or direction.

              • Protractor on 05/06/2025 - 11:40
                +3

                @Muppet Detector: Liability just doesn't work like that.
                You are the absolute last person who would have a clue about that. Each ensuing example scenario post you add another fanciful unrelated foray into absurdity.

              • happydude on 05/06/2025 - 12:07
                +2

                @Muppet Detector: The individual is probably liable, but would be covered via the clubs insurance. There are 4 elements to negligence.

                Duty of Care: The person was hitting a ball with a club. They have an obligation to do so safely. The club also has a duty to prevent balls damaging others.
                Breach of Duty: They did not do so safely and there was insufficient measures to stop the damage which is entirely reasonably foreseeable.
                Causation: The beach caused the damage to the windscreen.
                Damages: That will cost money to repair.

                Pretty straight forward.

                Now contributory negligence is a thing, but that is a very long bow to draw.

                Eg. We have pool laws. If someone drowns, there is only negligence on the part of the pool owner if their pool does not meet legal compliance. Sure, a person is dead, but the pool owner is not liable/negligent.

                So if they let a 3 year old into the pool area, then pop out for lunch and come back to a deceased or severely disabled child it's all good as long as the fence was compliant? That is very good to know. Thank you.

                • Protractor on 05/06/2025 - 12:09

                  @happydude: Or if they put a shark in the pool, or skydive onto the kid in the pool.

                • Muppet Detector on 05/06/2025 - 12:49

                  @happydude: I'm with you happydude. You've pretty much nailed the basics that a lot of others don't seem to be acknowledging.

                  For initial consideration, I would seek to clarify who had a duty to whom and then determine exactly what that duty was.

                  As far as the golf course having a duty, in most cases, the golf course would owe a duty of care to those who use its facilities (ie the people with whom they have a contract). With the exception of very rare circumstances, a golf course would not owe any duty of care to persons or things outside these contractual relationships unless they were otherwise legislated to be and they breached those duty/ies.

                  There may be some situations where a govt or other external body involved in planning for example, could impose other requirements such as fences being a certain height or whatever. It would be an extreme outlier exception where that imposed duty would be to prevent golfers from hitting golf balls outside the golf course property. In fact, the only golf course with such an imposition in Qld for example is a place called Top Golf. A golfing range built next to a motorway. I am not sure about other states but do know if such impositions occur, they are at an extreme outlier situation. They are definitely not common.

                  It is for this reason, that many golf clubs create a condition in their terms of use for the course members to have or contribute to an overarching insurance policy for community services type intentions because in most cases, the liability for harm lies with the person who caused the harm.

                  The golf course will have duties to anybody with whom they have a contract whether they be paying members or others invited onto the premises for example.

                  Note, in most cases, a golf course does not have a contractual relationship with somebody "passing by" on a pathway external to the golf course for example, so this duty to do no harm to those persons or things, does not usually exist.

                  These duties will likely differ depending on what the contractual relationship is, but more than likely providing some extent of safety for them, at a minimum.

                  The golf course also likely has other duties towards equipment or other facilities stored on its grounds.

                  Circling back to who actually has a duty of care to whom, in almost all circumstances, the duty of care will rest on the person causing the ball to move in the direction that led to the alleged harm.

                  So to establish negligence/liability
                  1. Does a duty of care exist
                  2. Establish who has a duty of care to whom
                  3. Determine what that duty was
                  4. Was that duty breached
                  5. Causation must not be too far removed
                  6. Damages

                • Muppet Detector on 05/06/2025 - 12:57

                  @happydude: No, if you leave a three year old unsupervised inside a pool enclosure (or near any water or other body for that matter), and they drown/become harmed, in all likelihood, somebody will be liable, but that may not be the person who owns the pool.

                  Of course, if it was the pool owner who did this they will be liable, but if their pool is compliant and the child manages to get inside the fence or somebody else lets the child in and fails to supervise that child, that person is liable, not the pool owner.

            • Ponsonby on 05/06/2025 - 21:46

              @Protractor: Major divided highway in fact

              • Protractor on 05/06/2025 - 21:54

                @Ponsonby: Just ignore the essays above. Hit the golf course up.Just hand over a time/date ,position, direction etc and ask for full cover of a new screen.Keep the ball as proof until you have a full resolution

                • Muppet Detector on 06/06/2025 - 15:27

                  @Protractor: Matey, at no time did I discourage the OP or anybody else from approaching the golf course to inform them or seek remedy for the harm they have incurred.

                  Obviously there are many examples just in this thread where the golf course has chosen to rectify the perceived harm, so claiming it wouldn't happen is just plain silly.

                  My involvement in the discussion however was to challenge the automatic assumption that the golf course is/was liable for the harm, not just in this scenario, but across all golf courses.

                  If you're not interested, just scroll on by. This forum isn't all about you and there is no need to be so damn rude about something, especially as it is clear that you have NFI what you're on about.

                  Just because the golf course did provide compensation, doesn't mean that this was a legal obligation.

                  IMO, if other people find themselves in a similar situation one day, the manner and attitude with which they address the incident can significantly affect the way they experience their outcome.

                  If they approach the situation with an understanding of the real legal situation and they get a desirable outcome then they can be pleasantly surprised as opposed to enraged (or even just a bit miffed), because things didn't go the way they thought they should have.

                  I understand that people decide how the law SHOULD work (and in this case, who SHOULD have liability), but that doesn't mean that's what the law really is or why it worked the way it did.

                  If a lot more people understood what the law actually was and why it worked the way that it does, there would be a lot less time and money wasted on frivolous law suits or endless whining and unnecessary complaint escalation which achieves nothing more than clogging up an already distressed system.

                  And LOL at "keep the ball". I'm almost curious about what you think that will achieve.

                  " keep the ball as proof"? LOL Proof of what? That the OP has a golf ball?

                  • Protractor on 06/06/2025 - 16:54

                    @Muppet Detector: You regret not getting a law degree,don't you?
                    Read your posts again. If anybody is creating a faux legal expert aspect it isn't me.I'm sure there was a wannabe who used to post on ABC sites called 'lawyerjeff' or similar. They knew it all too.Is that you?

                    Why keep the ball? Pay attention,maybe
                    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16587639/redir

                    • Muppet Detector on 08/06/2025 - 15:47

                      @Protractor: I have a law/commerce degree. Some stuff I know. I'm actually in my final year of a fourth degree and hoping to start a new one next year. God forbid you get yourself butthurt again and start name calling like a bratty fourth grader if someone knows some stuff that you don't.

                      • Protractor on 08/06/2025 - 17:04

                        @Muppet Detector: You do, and were waffling, about irrelevant crap. A shark in the ocean VS a golf ball on a major road. Good luck with your future clients.(if what you say is even true). So enough of the "butthurt & bratty" slurs. If you're calling ppl out, try not to mimic and amplify the behaviour .If you were ever practising law and did not advise the victim to seek resolution from the actual golf course, as a first course of action, you won't last long.In practise or in court.
                        My advice is be good at one thing, not half arsed in four.

            • Ponsonby on 05/06/2025 - 21:54

              @Protractor: Major divided highway in fact

  • gromit on 03/06/2025 - 21:59
    +4

    I have a friend that lives by a golf course. Had dinted car, broken roof tiles, two broken windows and never had an issue getting golf course to pay, they have insurance for exactly this.

  • blooue on 03/06/2025 - 23:01
    +1

    A golf ball hit my friend's car on a freeway near a golf course. They heard a thud but only figured it out after checking their dashcam at home. Found a dent on the car frame, reported it to the golf course and after a whole lot of back and forth, they got reimbursed (even though the golf course was still not admitting fault).

  • biiiink on 04/06/2025 - 12:06
    -3

    Unfortunately the golf course is only liable for damages if they are negligent in preventative measures. Typically they would just pay it out as if it's rare they would either put it through their insurance or just dip it out of their own pocket. Personally I think its a cop out, but here's another situation.

    You bring in a 3 year old to the pro shop, you try your best at restraining the child, but he eventually breaks free and snaps a club (somehow). Technically if CCTV shows that you made every effort in controlling the situation but the child eventually broke something, you could argue that you are not liable for the damages. Australian common law does not impose strict vicarious liability on parents just because their child caused damage. A parent actively supervising, holding hands, or gently restraining a toddler — as shown on CCTV — will likely be found to have acted reasonably.

    Personally i'd pay the shop for damages caused by my child, and I think generally most businesses will pay the public if they have caused damages regardless of being negligent or not.

    For those living near golf courses, i'd be more concerned about the link to golf course proximity and increased risk to parkinson's vs worrying about physical damage.

    • smartazz104 on 05/06/2025 - 08:21

      you could argue that you are not liable for the damages

      Yeah you could argue it, but the shop has the evidence of the child breaking the club, so as a parent you would still be liable. This kind of thinking is why so many shithead kids are being raised these days.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join