Golf ball damage.

[Dibby]

That's almost certainly right, but is it worth pursuing beyond just sending a letter? Small claims court, although designed to be straightforward to use, still comes with a degree of hassle and even then, it doesn't sound like a scenario where the answer is necessarily completely clear cut, so you might feel the need to involve a lawyer say. If the land is viewed as just a piece of land, it's strikes me that the landowner is less likely to be found to have been negligent in preventing damage to your car from someone playing golf than if it is a golf course. What precedent would that set for playing fields / fields more generally? What obligation is any landowner under to prevent damage to someone elses property from someone playing golf without permission on their land? In general terms, you'd think probably not a lot.

If the damage to the car is minor, all of that sounds to me like more hassle than it's worth. Of course if the damage is expensive to deal with then it might be worthwhile.

Most playing fields have a sign saying golf is not allowed. Is this land surrounded by signs informing people of that?
I would also suspect that land which was formally a golf course is far more likely to pose the risk of people hitting golf balls on it, than a publich playing field with football pitches and a playground for example.

If the plan to pursue further, it is worth getting photos of the current state of the land with regards to it not being fenced off, and any warnings (or lack of) that are currently on display.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Most playing fields have a sign saying golf is not allowed. Is this land surrounded by signs informing people of that?
I would also suspect that land which was formally a golf course is far more likely to pose the risk of people hitting golf balls on it, than a publich playing field with football pitches and a playground for example.

If the plan to pursue further, it is worth getting photos of the current state of the land with regards to it not being fenced off, and any warnings (or lack of) that are currently on display.

Would the golf club be liable if it were still open?

 

[Dibby]

Would the golf club be liable if it were still open?

It would depend, if the golfer hitting the ball was obviously negligent, like aiming away from the hole towards the road, or hitting the ball despite someone or their property standing in their line, liability would likely fall on the golfer, if the golfer was just using the course normally, then it would be looked at as to what actions the club had taken to minimise risk, such as fencing, signage etc...

In this case it's not that the golfer isn't liable, just that the landowner also has a duty of care. In practise they should have insurance that covers this anyway, the cost of putting right the damage should be far less money and hassle than any legal action, and might also prompt them to make changes to avoid others having the same fate as you.

 

[Sats]

Why are car park dings any different if the guilty party drives away without leaving details?

Do you mean the damage is a civil matter? I still think it’s a reasonable comparison, the police aren’t going to care realistically.

In my 19 years service we've never got involved in door dinks in car parks. And yes the damage is a civil matter. I'm not saying it's not annoying or naughty. Just not criminal.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

In my 19 years service we've never got involved in door dinks in car parks. And yes the damage is a civil matter. I'm not saying it's not annoying or naughty. Just not criminal.

Driving off without leaving details is though. Police still don’t care, and I understand why. I think something like this would sit in a similar category from a police perspective.

 

[drdel]

They're just trying to fob you off. Step one ask for that in writing, so you have a record of it.

Landowners have a duty of care, even to trespassers. So for example if someone trespasses on land containing a pond, falls in the pond and drowns, the landowner may be liable for compensation, however if the land was walled, and the pond had barriers and warning signs that it was deep water, the landowner may be judged to have taken reasonable precautions, despite the incident occurring.
Hence in this case, depending what the landowners have done to stop the (fairly obvious in my opinion) risk of people using a former golf course to hit golf balls, and the risks those golf balls pose to third parties, they may have liability.

Aye were it not for having a bit of spare time (COVID) I'd suck it up. It was their blanket denial and attempt to fob me off that prompted me to twist their tail a bit.

Interestingly there are still three very large signs adjacent to an 'A' road that advertises the course. My in-car camera shows these and the 'Club' sign that is on the access road entry. The only barriers are two concrete blocks across the car park entrance and the footpath to the clubhouse both of which can be easily walked around as there's no fencing along the fairway and the golf cart Tee access path is open.

I reckon they have slipped up and should have taken all the signs down, erected 'No trespassing' signs etc as soon as the course shut...

 

[drdel]

How can the people running the place be more negligent than a golfer who chooses to park his car next to a golf course?

Calm down it ain't worth getting uptight - always a good idea to read the start!

So, just for the record, the car in question was not parked on or next to the course - it was on the house's drive across a public road in a row of other private houses.

There is no-one 'running the place' as the property/land is now unoccupied.

 

[Dibby]

How can the people running the place be more negligent than a golfer who chooses to park his car next to a golf course?

As above, that's not what happened in this instance.

However, assuming that was the case it's not the person who parked the car that has caused any damage or loss to another party, it's the person who hit the golf ball. With this in mind initially it's the golfer who appears liable, however if the golfer was playing golf normally, then the question would have to be asked as to whether the golf club could have done anything more to protect others, such as erecting fences where a ball may be miss hit or placing signs warnign of the danger. If the answer to the previous question is yes, then the golf club has failed in it's duty of care, and could be held liable.

 

[Sats]

Driving off without leaving details is though. Police still don’t care, and I understand why. I think something like this would sit in a similar category from a police perspective.

Yes, but the offence is for driving off, not for the damage. Then it depends if the person was driving or opening their door. If they were driving then a collision has occurred and ergo the need for the exchange of details.
Plus even if the police were to know the driver - we would simply obtain details and advise the civil route. The cps/courts don't even charge people for breaching bail for heavens sake!