Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (opus-fddi.hpl.hp.com) by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA053034863; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:27:43 -0700 Return-Path: <edscott@shell9.ba.best.com-DeleteThis> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA233544862; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:27:42 -0700 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6 HPLabs Relay) with ESMTP id KAA28271 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA23684 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:19:23 -0700 Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com [17.128.100.139]) by mailgate.apple.com (mailgate.apple.com2.0.15) with ESMTP id <B0001328445@mailgate.apple.com-DeleteThis> for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:16:38 -0700 Received: from [17.197.20.103] (scoted2.apple.com [17.197.20.103]) by scv1.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA26392 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:16:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199807231716.KAA26392@scv1.apple.com-DeleteThis> Subject: RE: Golf ball damage at 3rd Ave Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:17:37 -0700 X-Sender: edscott@shell9.ba.best.com-DeleteThis X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Ed Scott <edscott@best.com-DeleteThis> To: "Wind Talk" <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Mr. Aliaga's position on this issue is not logical. He maintains that the
>car parking
>area was built after the driving range went in, and that this makes it OK
>for golf
>balls to go over the side fence.
It doesn't matter when the driving range went in relative to the road,
parking lot, or trail, for that matter. People cannot "come" to a
nuisance. Either a nuisance exists or not. This is a very common
situation where an airport is built in an unpopulated area and housing
develops around it. The airport cannot argue that the purchasers of the
houses came after the airport was built absolving them from liability for
any noise caused by the airport. If I'm not mistaken, this is
well-established law.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are driving range/golf course cases out
there, but I haven't done any legal research on the issue.
Unfortunately, a lot of lawyers are golfers.
>The driving range people need to increase the height of their fence.
>Period.
Correct.
-Ed
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 05 2013 - 02:01:44 PST