A golfer’s shot hits a homeowner’s car. Is he liable for not shouting “fore”?

A golfer who doesn’t shout “fore” before his golf ball damages a nearby homeowner’s car isn’t necessarily liable to pay the auto owner’s insurance deductible.

That’s because even if the golfer had issued the warning, the parked car couldn’t get out of the way, a B.C. tribunal has found.

“I considered whether Mr. Swonnell’s alleged failure to call ‘fore’ breached the standard of care for a reasonable golfer in the circumstances,” B.C. Civil Rules Tribunal Member Kristin Gardner wrote in Williams v. Swonnell, released yesterday.

“The trial court in Matharu found that the failure to call out a warning when a shot veers off on an unintended course is one factor in determining negligence,” Gardner wrote of previous case law, Matharu v. Nam. 

“However, it is also necessary to assess whether the warning would have made any difference to the outcome. I find that is determinative here,” the analysis read. “Even if Mr. Swonnell had seen his shot go off course and had called ‘fore,’ I find it might have given the Williamses the chance to protect themselves from the incoming ball, but not their vehicle.

“In other words, even if Mr. Swonnell breached the applicable standard of care by failing to call ‘fore,’ I find that breach did not cause the Williamses’ claimed damage.”

Gregory Ross Williams and Carol Anne Williams live next to a golf course. They claimed Steven Swonnell hit a golf ball that struck and damaged their vehicle in their driveway on Sept. 28, 2022.

The Williamses asked the tribunal to order Swonnell to pay them a total of $400, which would cover reimbursement of their $300 auto insurance deductible, plus their costs to take the matter before the tribunal.

The Williamses live in a home located somewhere along the course’s 17th hole, per the tribunal decision. They claimed they were taking their recycling outside at about 10:30 a.m. when they heard a loud bang, and then saw a golf ball bouncing nearby.

They discovered the ball had hit and dented the roof of their vehicle.

A neighbour, referred to as ‘A.D.’ in the tribunal documents, was dog-walking at the time. A.D. recounted seeing a group of men at the tee-off area for the 17th hole. One person hit a ball that “seemed to go quite high,” said A.D., who then saw a golf ball hit the Williamses’ car.

A.D. and the Williamses all said they did not hear any golfer call “fore” before the ball hit the vehicle.

“Mr. Williams says that he retrieved the ball, and that Mr. Swonnell soon came looking for it and admitted it was his,” the tribunal decision states. “Mr. Williams asked Mr. Swonnell to write down his name and number. Mr. Swonnell does not dispute this, and I find it is consistent with A.D.’s statement.

“It is also undisputed that Mr. Swonnell met with Mr. Williams at the golf shop about an hour later, to review and discuss the vehicle damage. However, there is no evidence before me that Mr. Swonnell agreed he was responsible for the damage or that he would pay to repair it.”

In fact, the tribunal decision notes, Swonnell said he only agreed to write down the name and number and meet at the golf shop “to avoid conflict.”

The tribunal found Swonnell did in fact shoot the errant ball that damaged the Williamses’ car. But caselaw shows that he had to be negligent for him to be responsible for paying the damage.

The tribunal found not calling “fore” as a warning does not prove liability to pay for damages.

The tribunal ruled the Williamses did not prove Swonnell should have done something differently to avoid the damage. For example, the Williamses did not provide evidence about the configuration of the 17th tee-off area and greenway, how close the tee was to the Williamses’ driveway, or how frequently golf balls enter their property.

“So, I find I cannot determine whether Mr. Swonnell obviously failed to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances,” Gardner wrote.

Just because the golf ball went “quite high,” as A.D. testified, that isn’t enough to prove a reasonable player would not have hit the ball the same way, the tribunal found.

“[I]t is not enough that Mr. Swonnell’s golf ball did not go in exactly the direction he likely intended it to go,” Gardner wrote. “I note that there is no suggestion that Mr. Swonnell was playing recklessly or that he intentionally hit his golf ball in the direction of the Williamses’ vehicle.”

 

Feature image courtesy of iStock.com/ImagineGolf