Divided appellate panel revives golf ball home damage lawsuit

Listen to this article

In Brief

• Minnesota Court of Appeals revives homeowner’s golf ball damage lawsuit
• Court finds factual disputes over golf course negligence and nuisance claims
• Homeowner alleged years of repeated golf ball strikes damaged property
• Dissent argues homeowner assumed obvious risks of living near dogleg hole

A Minnesota woman filed suit after her home sustained damage from golf balls over many years. Although the district court granted summary judgment to Valley Golf Association, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, with two of the three judges on the panel finding genuine issues of material fact.

In 2014, Susan Neegard purchased a lot in East Grand Forks and became the first owner of one half of a twin home bordering the Valley Golf Course. Her property is part of a subdivision governed by a declaration of restrictive covenants that runs with the land and allows golf activities necessary for play on the adjacent course. She acknowledged receiving and reviewing these covenants before closing and had seen the declaration prior to purchase.

Her lot directly abuts the ninth hole of the golf course, which was rebuilt after flood damage and features a par-four dogleg left layout of nearly 400 yards. A dogleg in golf is a hole where the fairway bends left or right partway to the green, rather than being straight. Golfers must plan their shots carefully to reach the turn and then set up a good approach to the green. Neegard’s home sits between the tee box and green, placing it in close proximity to regular golf play.

In March 2024, Neegard sued the association, alleging that golf balls hitting her home caused property damage and interfered with her use and enjoyment of her land. She cited letters from herself and neighbors complaining about golf balls damaging their homes and yards, including golfers cutting the corner on the ninth hole.

In 2016, neighbors reported frequent golf ball strikes causing significant damage. While the association responded by planting trees, adding grass, and installing out-of-bounds stakes and ropes, Neegard said the damage continued. In 2020, neighbors again reported near misses, continued golf balls landing on properties, and a ball hitting the home and causing damage. Neegard also sent another complaint in 2023 about ongoing golf ball damage.

She brought claims for negligence, nuisance and trespass, seeking monetary damages and other relief. Subsequently, Neegard moved to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages. The association moved for summary judgment, and opposed the motion to amend.

After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment for the association and dismissed all of Neegard’s claims with prejudice, concluding that she had assumed the risk of golf balls, that her nuisance claim was barred by the declaration, and that her trespass claim failed because the declaration permitted golf balls on her property. The court also denied her motion to amend the complaint to add a punitive damages claim.

While the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that Neegard expressly assumed the risk of normal hazards that occurred when living next to a golf course, the court found that there was evidence that the association was responsible for abnormal hazards that damaged her property. The declaration grants an easement allowing all necessary golf activities, including golf balls flying over and landing on the lots, as well as “all other common and usual activity associated with the game of golf.”

The court also found that Neegard’s negligence and nuisance claims were not barred by the doctrine of implied primary assumption of risk. Neegard presented evidence that the association’s negligent design and maintenance of the ninth hole increased the risk of golf balls striking her property, citing an early bend that encourages golfers to cut the corner.

The court found that the district court erred in dismissing the negligence and nuisance claims. It noted that the association admitted that it took mitigation steps in 2016, but Neegard showed the golf-ball damage continued afterward. Her expert stated an abnormal number of balls still hit her home and further reasonable measures could effectively eliminate the damage.

This, according to the appellate court, created a genuine issue of material fact on breach of duty and whether the breach caused the property damage. The court also cited the inadequate mitigation efforts in 2016, finding that there was a question of whether the association’s conduct was wrongful.

The court remanded.

However, Judge Kevin Ross dissented. “[B]uying a home abutting a golf course uniquely built in the flight path of properly played golf balls leaves the homeowner who has expressly assumed the risk of the hazard unable to pursue a tort claim against the golf course for the obviously foreseeable circumstance of balls hitting her house,” Ross avowed. “And this assumption of risk is not eliminated because the house is hit more frequently than homes abutting non-dogleg holes.”

“Buying a house on the hypotenuse inside the elbow of a dogleg is like parking your car beside first base — the view is great, but the risk is obvious,” Ross added.

Also hearing the case were Judge Diane Bratvold and Judge James Florey.