Wong on Civil Liability

Golfers' Liability in Australia

Work-in-progress, 12 January 2025 (last updated). 

A sourcebook on liability issues relating to the sport of golf. 

(note, significant case law arose from judgments in Queensland; there appears to be a paucity of post-2003 Civil Liability Act cases on golfers' liability; see, also, discussions of golf club liability and golf course design standards below)

[*] Rules of Golf - Rules of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews and the United States Golf Association

• R&A, USGA, Rules of Golf (eff, Jan 2023) <https://downloads.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/5eyGkXUr2ir07RfTEs58yI/2b2c4f4e2a663a5feb32044b3406598e/Rules_of_Golf_2023_R_A.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/4TBW-X9FM>. 

• Eg, r 1.2a: "All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by: ... Showing consideration to others – for example, by playing at a prompt pace, looking out for the safety of others, and not distracting the play of another player. If a player plays a ball in a direction where there might be a danger of hitting someone, they should immediately shout a warning, such as the traditional warning of “fore”."

• Eg, "Ready Golf": 

> r 5.6b: "A round of golf is meant to be played at a prompt pace. Each player should recognize that their pace of play is likely to affect how long it will take other players to play their rounds, including both those in the player’s own group and those in following groups. Players are encouraged to allow faster groups to play through ..."

> r 5.6b(2): "Playing Out of Turn to Help Pace of Play. Depending on the form of play, there are times when players may play out of turn to help the pace of play: • In match play, the players may agree that one of them will play out of turn to save time (see Rule 6.4a Exception).• In stroke play, players may play “ready golf” in a safe and responsible way (see Rule 6.4b(2))."

> r 6.4: "• In stroke play, there is no penalty for playing out of turn, and players are both allowed and encouraged to play “ready golf” — that is, to play out of turn in a safe and responsible way"

> r 6.4b(2): "Playing Out of Turn in a Safe and Responsible Way (“Ready Golf”). Players are both allowed and encouraged to play out of turn in a safe and responsible way, such as when: • Two or more players agree to do so for convenience or to save time, • A player’s ball comes to rest a very short distance from the hole and the player wishes to hole out, or • An individual player is ready and able to play before another player whose turn it is to play under the normal order of play in (1), so long as in playing out of turn the player does not endanger, distract or interfere with any other player. But if the player whose turn it is to play under (1) is ready and able to play and indicates that they want to play first, other players should generally wait until that player has played. A player should not play out of turn to gain an advantage over other players."

• Searching for ball in play: 

> r 18.2a: "(1) When Ball Is Lost. A ball is lost if not found in three minutes after the player or their caddie begins to search for it. If a ball is found in that time but it is uncertain whether it is the player’s ball: • The player must promptly attempt to identify the ball (see Rule 7.2) and is allowed a reasonable time to do so, even if that happens after the threeminute search time has ended. • This includes a reasonable time to get to the ball if the player is not where the ball is found. If the player does not identify their ball in that reasonable time, the ball is lost". 

> definition of 'Lost': "The status of a ball that is not found in three minutes after the player or their caddie (or the player’s partner or partner’s caddie) begins to search for it. A ball does not become lost as a result of the player declaring it to be lost. If a player deliberately delays the start of the search in order to allow other people to search on their behalf, the search time starts when the player would have been in a position to search had they not delayed getting to the area. If the search begins and is then temporarily interrupted for a good reason (such as when the player stops searching when play is suspended or needs to stand aside to wait for another player to play) or when the player has mistakenly identified a wrong ball: • The time between the interruption and when the search resumes does not count, and • The time allowed for search is three minutes in total, counting the search time both before the interruption and after the search resumes."

• See also, Golf Australia, 2023 Changes to the Rules of Golf <https://www.golf.org.au/2023-changes-to-the-rules-of-golf>, archived at <https://archive.is/kcC9D>. 

• Etiquette - see discussion in [A.1] below.

• See also, local rules, policies, terms and conditions at Clubs and courses, including OB, hazards, and those about giving way to back nine players, etc.

> Eg, "Players should ensure that no one is standing close by or in a position to be hit by the club, the ball or any stones, pebbles, twigs or the like when they make a stroke or practice swing. Players should not play until the players in front are out of range. Course Staff have right of way at all times on the golf course. Players should wait or alert Course Staff nearby or ahead when they are about to make a stroke that might endanger them. If a player plays a ball in a direction where there is a danger of hitting someone, they should immediately shout a warning. The traditional word of warning in such a situation is “fore.”: 'Safety' (Virginia Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.virginiagolf.com.au/cms/safety/>, archived at <https://archive.is/mpCfF>. 

> Eg, 'Pace of Play Policy & Guidance' (Virginia Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.virginiagolf.com.au/cms/pace-of-play/>, archived at <https://archive.is/FVsou>. 

• Pace of Play Manual (R&A, 2021) <https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/c42c7bf4-dca7-00ea-4f2e-373223f80f76/2ed7ea38-67be-409c-8046-d055c3d4c1df/Pace%20of%20Play%20Manual.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/2JAD-5M3M>. -- see chapter 4 'Player Behaviour'. 

• Model Local Rules (R&A, USGA) <https://www.randa.org/en/rog/committee-procedures/8>, archived at <https://archive.is/ZFLxO>. -- Out-of-Bounds and No-Play Zones; specific equipment restriction.

> see commentary, advocating for the revocation of the Model Local Rules before 2026: Toby Ingleton, 'Is that all?' (2023) 72 Golf Course Architect 52, 53 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue72/53/>.  

• First Swing: Golfer's Guide (PGA of America, 2004) <https://pdf.pgalinks.com/p-g-a/FS_Golfers_Guide_1.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/6VMU-DS7K>: "... The time it takes to play a round of golf depends on several conditions: the difficulty of the golf course, the number of players on the golf course and your skill level. On average an 18-hole round of golf should be approximately four to four-and-a-half hours. This breaks down to about 15 minutes per hole. To speed up play several strategies should be used: 1. Be ready to play: Make sure you have tees, an extra ball, ball markers and a divot repair tool in your pocket during play. 2. Limit your practice swings to one before it’s your turn to play. 3. Watch your ball land and select a spot in the distance to use as a visual marker when looking for your ball. Have others in your group watch each player’s shots. This helps speed up the time to find a ball that is not in the fairway. 4. Search for a lost ball for 5 minutes or less. 5. Carry your bag, roll your pull cart or park your golf car on the side of the putting green closest to the next hole. When carrying a bag or pulling a cart always move your equipment forward to avoid walking back to get your clubs. 6. Putt out. Play is faster if you finish putting rather than marking your ball on the putting green. 7. Record your score on the next tee, not on the putting green. 8. Keep up. You are playing too slow if the group in front of you is one hole ahead. 9. Let faster groups play through."

• Adam Lawrence, 'How to Beat Slow Play' (Golf Course Architecture, 1 April 2007) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/how-to-beat-slow-play>, archived at <https://archive.md/A0ODB>. 

• Joel Beall, 'The 9 Most Important Unwritten Rules of Golf' (Australian Golf Digest, 20 September 2016) <https://www.australiangolfdigest.com.au/9-important-unwritten-rules-golf/>, archived at <https://archive.is/9xIEA>. 

[A] Duty of Care: Personal Liability - Negligent Liability

• Agar v Hyde [1998] 45 NSWLR 487, [513]: "After all, opposing players can already sue each other for intentionally and negligently inflicted injuries; they can sue the referee for negligent failure to enforce the rules; and the sports administrator that dons the mantle of occupier assumes well established duties of care towards players, spectators (and in the case of golf clubs) neighbours. A duty of care is not negated merely because participation in the sport is voluntary."

> See also, Rhys Evans, 'Logics and Legal Forms: An Empiricial Legal Analysis of Sports Club Decision-Making' (PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, 2022) 49 <https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/149697/1/2022EvansRPhD.pdf>. 

• Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, 560-1 (Gleeson CJ): "... After all, opposing players can already sue each other for intentionally and negligently inflicted injuries; they can sue the referee for negligent failure to enforce the rules; and the sports administrator that dons the mantle of an occupier assumes well established duties of care towards players, spectators and (in the case of golf clubs) neighbours. A duty of care is not negated merely because participation in the sport is voluntary. ... Voluntary participation in a sporting activity does not imply an assumption of any risk which might be associated with the activity, so as to negate the existence of a duty of care in any other participant or in any person in any way involved in or connected with the activity (Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383). That, however, is not to deny the significance of voluntary participation in determining the existence and content, in a given case, or category of cases, of an asserted duty of care."

• Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517 at 520 Gleeson CJ said: “In legal formulations of the duty and standard of care, the central concept is reasonableness. The duty is usually expressed in terms of protecting another against unreasonable risk of harm, or of some kind of harm; the standard of conduct necessary to discharge the duty is usually expressed in terms of what would be expected of a reasonable person, both as to foresight of the possibility of harm, and as to taking precautions against such harm. Life is risky. People do not expect, and are not entitled to expect, to live in a risk-free environment. The measure of careful behaviour is reasonableness, not elimination of risk. Where people are subject to a duty of care, they are to some extent their neighbours’ keepers, but they are not their neighbours’ insurers.”

• the law makes distinction between 'an error of judgment and a failure to take reasonable care' - in the context of sport (indoor cricket): Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9, [16] (Gleeson CJ); Goode v Angland [2016] NSWSC 1014, [114] (Harrison J): "The distinction between negligent acts or omissions and errors of judgment remains part of the common law of Australia."

• Failing to keep proper lookout (defective lookout): Ollier v Magnetic Island Country Club Inc & Anor [2004] QCA 137, [38]-[39] (White JA): "As the learned trial judge correctly expressed it, the risk to which the respondent was exposed was a risk that a following player would play the ball at a time when the respondent was in range of being struck and thus at risk of being injured.  Not only, as his Honour found, is this not a risk inherent in a game of golf, the appellant was aware of the rule of the game and knew, as did other witnesses who described it as being a rule of common sense, that a player ought not play a ball in circumstances where there was a risk of another player being struck.  The argument was virtually concluded when the appellant agreed that had he seen the respondent he would not have struck the ball because of the risk that the respondent might have been hit. In my view the learned trial judge was correct when he concluded that the appellant was under a duty of care to the respondent and because of his defective lookout he failed to discharge that duty and as a consequence the respondent sustained serious injury. [Note: pre 2003 Civil Liability Act -- see below for discussion on CLA obvious risk].

> See also, 'Court upholds $2.6m payout to golfer' (Sydney Morning Herald, 30 April 2004) <https://www.smh.com.au/national/court-upholds-2-6m-payout-to-golfer-20040430-gdiu7z.html>. 

> See also, [2004] QCA 316; [2003] QSC 263. 

> See also, 'The first warning shot' (The Age, 28 November 2004) <https://www.theage.com.au/sport/golf/the-first-warning-shot-20041128-gdz32i.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/hsbEm>. 

> See also, 'Insurance can stop a poor shot landing in court' (The Age, 12 September 2004) <https://www.theage.com.au/national/insurance-can-stop-a-poor-shot-landing-in-court-20040912-gdymbg.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/Xe66q>. 

> See also, Tina Cockburn, 'Golfer Liable for Injury: Ollier v Magnetic Island Country Club Incorporated & Shanahan' (2003) 23(9) Proctor 23 <https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/agispt.20040095>. 

> See also, Natasha Schot, 'Negligent Liability in Sport' (2005) Sports Law eJournal 1, 2 <https://slgj.scholasticahq.com/article/6394.pdf>. 

> See also, Chris Davies, 'Sport Governing Bodies and the Duty of Care' (2019) 25 James Cook University Law Review 19 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2019/3.pdf>. 

• * Keith Tronc, 'Plaintiff Planning Points in Sporting Litigation' (1998) Plaintiff 24 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PlaintiffJlAUPLA/1998/59.pdf>. -- see also cases within, eg: "... Golf: Cleghorn v Oldham (1927) 43 TLR 465. Castle v St Augustine's Links Ltd (1922) 38 TLR 615. Sans v Ramsey Golf and Country Club Inc (1959) 29 NJ 438. Matheson v Northcote College (1975) 2 NZLR 106. Nixon v Gay (1987) Aust Torts Reports 80-098. The Albany Golf Club Incorporated v Carey (1987) Aust Torts Reports 80-139."

• Brett Charrington, 'Foreseeability and causal links: Golfing Liability' (2003) 59 Plaintiff 16 <https://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PlaintiffJlAUPLA/2003/80.pdf> -- see cases cited within.

• "Fore!": duty to warn of the risk of harm by errant ball: Pollard v Trude [2008] QCA 421, [2]-[3] (McMurdo P), [35], [37]-[39] (Holmes JA): "... My view is that the appeal fails because, on the facts rightly found by the primary judge, the respondent, Mr Trude, did not breach his duty of care to the appellant, Dr Pollard.  The rules of golf require that if a player plays a ball in a direction where there is a danger of it hitting someone, the player should immediately shout a warning.  This accords with common sense and reasonable behaviour.  I agree with the primary judge[1] and with Holmes JA that although the traditional form of such a warning is "fore", a warning in other terms such as "watch out" or its equivalent was in this case an adequate warning to Dr Pollard of the possible approach of Mr Trude's mis-hit ball. Mr Trude was an experienced golfer.  Dr Pollard was in front of him on the golf course but well away from where Mr Trude and Dr Pollard believed Mr Trude would hit the ball.  When Mr Trude hit the ball and realised, or should have realised, that its trajectory was not as expected, but instead in the direction where he believed Dr Pollard to be waiting, Mr Trude had a duty to warn Dr Pollard of the approaching ball.  Although Dr Pollard was expecting Mr Trude to hit the ball and was waiting for him to do so, he did not know exactly when Mr Trude would take the shot.  He certainly did not expect Mr Trude to hit the ball to him where he was waiting at the edge of the fairway in the trees.  Had Mr Trude's shot proceeded to the right of the fairway, well away from Dr Pollard, as Mr Trude, an experienced and competent golfer expected, no warning would have been necessary.  Mr Estwick, at the time the president of the golf club, gave evidence that a warning should be given before a player hits the ball when another person was in a position of potential risk.  At the time Mr Trude hit the ball, Dr Pollard was well out of the way of the expected trajectory of the ball and did not seem to be at risk.  But as soon as it became or should have become obvious to Mr Trude that he had mis-hit the ball and it was heading towards the trees where Dr Pollard was waiting, a warning was then necessary. ... The learned judge observed that while “Fore” was the most common danger warning on a golf course, it was not universal, nor was it mandated by the rules of golf.  He regarded it as synonymous with “Watch out”, both warnings conveying a message of impending danger from the approaching golf ball.  On earlier occasions when he heard a shout of “Fore”, Dr Pollard said, he had watched the flight of the ball so as to be able to take evasive action if necessary, and that was what he had done on the day he was injured.  His Honour did not accept that if the call of “Fore” rather than “Watch out” had been made, Dr Pollard’s reaction would have been any different, or sufficiently swift to avoid injury. ... It was contended for Dr Pollard on this appeal that the finding that “Fore” was synonymous with “Watch out” was wrong: the evidence was that “Fore” was the traditional shout of warning, producing a range of responses which included covering the head or turning away.  But the fact that “Fore” might be commonly used rather than “Watch out” and might elicit particular responses does not mean his Honour was wrong to say the two were synonymous insofar as they conveyed the same warning of imminent danger.  No difference between the meanings of “Fore” and “Watch out” (or “Watch it” or “Look out”) was suggested by any witness.  It is difficult to imagine, in the context of Mr Trude’s taking his second shot, that “Watch out” or “Watch it” could convey anything other than “Watch out, my ball is coming.”  In my view, his Honour was right to find that both “Watch out” and “Fore” amounted to warnings of the ball’s approach. But the real question is whether Mr Trude’s duty of care obliged him to shout “Fore”, as opposed to “Watch out Errol”.  A call of “Fore” might have been warranted had Mr Trude mis-hit the ball directly towards Dr Pollard.  However, Mr Trude’s state of information was that his ball was travelling, several metres up, into a tree on the edge of a grove in which Dr Pollard was standing.  At that point, there was a general risk that the ball might be caught in the foliage and fall in Dr Pollard’s vicinity.  The shout of, “Watch out Errol” was the response of a reasonable person to those circumstances.  In hindsight, “Fore” might have been the call better designed to produce a quicker and more effective reaction to danger (because it might produce some protection of the face), but Mr Trude could not have predicted that the ball would actually strike the tree and ricochet at the precise angle to hit Dr Pollard at eye level. The learned judge found that Dr Pollard would not have responded differently to a cry of “Fore”, given his previous experiences and responses.  An additional factor is that, on my view at least, a warning only became necessary once the ball entered the trees where Dr Pollard was, and it is unlikely that there could have been more than a second or two from then until the ball actually ricocheted and hit him.  I doubt he had time to assemble his thoughts and move to protect his head, and, given his lack of previous experience, it was unlikely that he would reflexively adopt a protective position.  I think the learned trial judge’s conclusion that a cry of “Fore” would have made no difference was the correct one.".

> See also, 'Who is liable for injury, the player or the facility?' (Golf Industry Central, 3 January 2021) <https://www.golfindustrycentral.com.au/golf-industry-news/who-is-liable-for-injury-the-player-or-the-facility/>, archived at <https://archive.is/YBlrS>. 

> See also, esp, Marcela Kamada and David Muir, 'Fore! Duty Of Care Issues For Golfers' (Mondaq, 30 April 2009) <https://www.mondaq.com/australia/insurance-laws-and-products/78948/fore-duty-of-care-issues-for-golfers>, archived at <https://archive.is/k6GO9>. 

> Indooroopilly Golf Club. 

> See also, original decision in Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119. 

> Amanda Stickley, ''Golf can be Dangerous: Be Forewarned' (2009) Qld Lawyer <https://eprints.qut.edu.au/32462/1/c32462.pdf>. 

> Commentary from Annotated Civil Liability Legislation (LexisNexis, 5th ed, 2021) [13.11]: "In Pollard v Trude,602 the plaintiff was struck by a golf ball hit by the defendant. They were proficient amateur golfers engaged in a club competition. The plaintiff, on a par four hole, struck his second shot first, it passing into the trees on the edge of the fairway. In accordance with the local course rules and practice, he proceeded forward to locate his ball. The plaintiff located his ball and waited in the trees for the defendant to take his next shot. He said he expected, from the defendant, prior warning of it being taken. He was struck by the defendant’s ball, which, in the course of its upward trajectory, struck a high branch at the edge of the fairway and ricocheted sharply into the plaintiff, who was standing among the trees. The result was loss of the plaintiff’s sight in one eye. Chesterman J found against the plaintiff on a number of grounds including by invoking ss 14 (volens) and 15 (no warning required) of the CL Act, each on the back of a primary finding that the risk of being struck by a golf ball was an obvious risk to the plaintiff (at [65]): The risk that Dr Pollard might be struck by Mr Trude’s ball was in the circumstances I have described a small one. It had, in the words of the subsection, a low probability Page 187 of occurring. The plaintiff was protected by the trees, the defendant was a good golfer who was hitting in a line away from the plaintiff. The risk was, nevertheless, obvious. To the extent that evidence was necessary it established that even the best golfers can hit wayward shots and a ball which hits a tree can deflect in any direction. To go in front of a golfer about to hit a shot is to run an obvious risk, the magnitude of which will vary with the skill of the golfer, the distance in front and the size of the angle between the line from the golfer to that person and the line of the intended shot. Dr Pollard’s evidence that he expected a warning from Mr Trude is a tacit acceptance of the existence of the risk. It being obvious, failure to give it does not amount to a breach of duty because of the operation of s 15 of the CLA. An appeal from the decision was dismissed."

-> the obvious risk was not the game of golf in toto, but the plaintiff's act of going ahead of play to look for his ball. 

-> unintended consequence of hitting ball. 

-> law makes distinctions between unintentional consequences of conduct, negligence, and recklessness.  

> Chris Finn and Michael Milton, 'Golfer should have known it was an ‘obvious risk’ to his health' (2008) 5(3) Australian Civil Liability 34 (LexisNexis): "... Implications. The plaintiff's claim failed because the risk in the circumstances was determined to be an obvious one, he voluntarily assumed it, and a reasonable man in the position of the defendant would have taken his shot. This was a case of experienced golfers who knew the game, and the risks involved. In the context of golfing accidents, there may of course be circumstances where hitting a shot with a player in front will be held to be negligent. However, based upon this decision, if you are playing golf and go ahead of play to look for your ball, and the expectation is that your playing partners will take their shots in the meantime, then you not only voluntarily assume the obvious risk of being hit, but it is an obvious risk.".

> Amanda Stickley, 'Golf Can be Dangerous - Be Forewarned - Case Note; Pollard v Trude' (2009) 29(4) Qld Lawyer 192.

> *See also, Scott Cowell, 'What (If Any) Warning Should a Golfer Provide When Playing a Shot: Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119 and [2008] QCA 421' (2009) 77 The ANZSLA Commentator 19 <https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.718257496618463>: "... As an aside, it should be noted that McMurdo P, whilst agreeing that the appeal should be dismissed, concluded that the risk of the plaintiff being hit would not have been an ‘obvious risk’, nor would the defendant have been entitled to rely upon the defence of voluntary assumption of risk, had the defendant not called out to the plaintiff to watch out.18 Holmes JA and White AJA did not find that such a precondition was necessary. ... These decisions provides some guidance to golfers and golf clubs as to the type and manner of warning that should be used during a round of golf. However, the decisions should be viewed withsome degree of caution.The Golf Club was operating under a set of modified rules - i.e. that golfers could take their shotswhen other players were in front of them provided it was safe to do so. The writer is uncertain ifsimilar findings would have been made to those outlined above if the standard rules of golf had notbeen modified (particularly with respect to the issues of ‘obvious risk’ and voluntary assumption ofrisk). Golfers, golf clubs, their insurers and litigators, when implementing risk management policies and attempting to defend claims, would be wise to consider carefully the precautions which the Queensland Court of Appeal suggested in Ollier should be adopted by a reasonable golfer before taking a shot in the normal course. Finally, the decisions provide some guidance as to when a risk will be considered to be an ‘obvious risk’, and in what circumstances a plaintiff will be found to have voluntarily consented to a risk. The first instance decision, and the appeal judgement of Holmes JA, confirm the willingness of Australian Courts to (post tort law reform) hold sporting participants accountable for risks that they have knowledge of and have, regardless of that risk, chosen to accept."

> See also, Joachim Dietrich and Iain Field, 'The 'Reasonable Tort Victim': Contributory Negligence, Standard of Care and the Equivalence Theory' (2017) 41 Melbourne University Law Review 602. 

• "The altogether different nature of some sports means that participants in those sports do not deserve to be relieved of the normal duty of care in negligence. The classic example is golf. It is submitted that the golfer who injures a fellow golfer in close proximity to him at the time he takes his shot can properly be held liable for failure to warn, or for not waiting until the fellow player has 'moved on'. The golfer may be held liable for failure to call out to a fellow player 'out of courtesy and in order to alert him to risk, even if the risk was small'. See Pearson v. Lightning, The Times, 30 April 1998. See also the comments of Sellers L.J. in Wooldridge v. Sumner [1962] 3 WLR 616, at 622-623; [1963] 2 QB 43, at 55-56. ...": Ray Ryan, 'Winner All Right - Liability in Tort for Injury in Sport' (2003) 6 Trinity College Law Review 155, 156 (n 4)

• Craig Brown, 'Golf and the Law: More than Errant Golf Balls' (1998) 9(2) Otago Law Review 373 <https://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/1998/12.pdf>. 

• ** Chris Davies, 'When the Game of Golf Becomes a Nuisance' (2021) 17(1) Malaysian Journal of Sport Science and Recreation 1 <https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/48282/1/48282.pdf>. -- see cases cited therein.

• ** Chris Davies, 'Negligence and Risk Management and Sport' (Paper, 2012) <https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/25604/1/25604_Davies_2012.pdf>. -- see cases cited therein.

• ** Bill Willesee, 'Liability for Errant Golf Balls' (2009) 78 ANZSLA Commentator 5-11. here.

• Negligence - Putting at golf, eyes glued to ball for 15 seconds, lookout: obiter: Georgopoulos v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2004] NSWCA 266, [10] (Certoma ADCJ).

• "As noted by McDonald, the legislation raises fundamental question of interpretation: can the negligence of the defendant ever be considered an obvious risk of an activity? McDonald surmises that negligence by others is not something that one should expect. In her view the opposite is true: "[T]he reasonable expectation of the participant is that reasonable, if not the highest, care will be taken… the bungee jump rope should be checked for length and strength, the parachute carefully folded, the abseiling equipment tests [sic], the camels properly saddled, or a group of golfers should be expected to keep a look out as they tee off with those small hard balls at the third hole."": Lynden Griggs, 'Dangerous recreational activities - stay at home and be safe!' [2010] International Sports Law Review 9, 15, referring to Barbara McDonald, "The impact of the Civil Liability legislation on fundamental policies and principles of the common law of negligence" (2006) 14 T.L.J. Lexis 22, 57.

• US: 

> 'Is A Golfer Liable For Hitting A Person? The Surprising Legal Reality' (Robert Miller & Assoc., Webpage) <https://www.expertlawfirm.com/is-a-golfer-liable-for-hitting-a-person-the-surprising-legal-reality/>, archived at <https://archive.md/4G4fj>: "... People who play or watch sports take on some risk of injury. Even if you are on a golf break.This is called “assumption of risk.” It means you can’t always sue if you get hurt during normal play. For golf, this could apply to: Getting hit by a ball on the course Tripping on uneven ground Being struck by a club during a swing. But there are limits. You don’t assume the risk of reckless behavior by others. A golfer who acts dangerously can still be liable, even if you chose to be on the course. ..."

> Michael Conklin and Andrew Tiger, 'Taking a Mulligan on Golfer Liability for Damages to Adjacent People and Property: Why Existing Standards Are Too Defendant-Friendly' (2023) 52 Hofstra Law Review 35 <https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol52/iss1/3/>, SSRN <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4542865>. 

> John J Kircher, 'Golf and Torts: An Interesting Twosome' (2001) 12(1) Marquette Sports Law Review 347 <https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=sportslaw>. 

> Francis McGovern Jr, 'Golf Course Liability' (Webpage, 25 May 2020) <https://theassociationlawyers.com/golf-course-liability/>, archived at <https://archive.md/ENoHc>. 

> Jay E Pietig, 'Golf Course Liability - A "Fore!" Warning' (1994) 42 Drake Law Review 905 <https://drakelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/pietig.pdf>. 

> Michael A Shadiack, 'TORTS - ACT OF GOD - DOES A GOLF COURSE OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR OWE A DUTY OF CARE To THEIR PATRONS To PROTECT TiEM FROM LIGHTNING STRIKES?: Maussner v. Atlantic City Country Club, Inc., 691 A.2d 826 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)' (1998) 8 Seton Hall Journal of Sports Law 301 <https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1297&context=sports_entertainment>.

> Karen M Vieira, '"Fore!" May Be Just Par For The Course' (1994) 4 Seton Hall Journal of Sports Law 181 <https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=sports_entertainment>. 

> Harold Gluck, 'An Accident on the Golf Course - Who's Liable' (1980) Nov Golf Business 22, 22, 29 <https://web.archive.org/web/20160304181059/https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/1980nov22.pdf>.   

> J Michael Veron, 'Liability on the Golf Course' (1990) Sept/Oct USGA Green Section Record 10 <https://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1990s/1990/900910.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/4SWF-AZ6J>. 

> 'Liability of the Golfer' (Premier Club Services, Webpage) <https://www.cmaa.org/PcsTemplate.aspx?id=37197>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20150501031212/https://www.cmaa.org/PcsTemplate.aspx?id=37197>. 

> ** Natalie Bird, 'An Impending Lawsuit or Just Bad Luck? Getting Struck by a Golf Ball Leads to Unanswered Questions' (Sports Litigation Alert, 23 August 2024) <https://sportslitigationalert.com/an-impending-lawsuit-or-just-bad-luck-getting-struck-by-a-golf-ball-leads-to-unanswered-questions/>, archived at <https://archive.is/rNXEK>: "... This case hinges on a variety of details that are not publicly available currently. Golf ball-related lawsuits typically focus on proving negligence, and this situation is no exception. However, answers to three questions will greatly impact the outcome of this case: Did the course do their job? Was Watt acting recklessly? How familiar is Mohr with the area of the incident?". 

-> Greg Gottfried, 'Woman sues golf club after ball allegedly flies through car window and hits her face' (Australian Golf Digest, 7 March 2024) <https://www.australiangolfdigest.com.au/woman-sues-victoria-golf-club-after-ball-flies-through-window-hits-her-face/>, archived at <https://archive.is/Ck5Dk>. 

> Donald Leon Moore, 'Torts -- Liability of Golf Courses to Invitees' (1954) 33(1) North Carolina Law Review 142 <https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5867&context=nclr>.

> John Minan, The Little Book of Golf Law (American Bar Association, 2nd ed, 2014). 

-> Jay Flemma, 'John Minan's 'Little Book of Golf Law, 2nd Edition' Still a Double-Bogey' (Golf News Stories Online) <https://golfnewsstoriesonline.com/news/all/golf_news/john_minans_little_book_of_golf_law_2nd_edition_still_a_doublebogey.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/DxKWk>: "... Minan's book is a cutesy little thing to sell to his students and gain a little street cred on campus. But practicing lawyers don't have time or use for cutesy, street cred, or beard-pulling. We need a book that will be helpful to lawyers who practice sports law and, in particular, have golf-industry clientele as clients. As Maximus famously said to Proximo, "This is not it…this is NOT it . . ." The law and practice of the golf world is primarily contractual: contracts between course owners and architects, between networks and rights-holders, between players and managers, players and caddies, etc. There is also a significant amount of real estate, tax law, business formation and intellectual property involved. There are even issues regarding steroid/PED policies that need to be addressed. Golf lawyers, and indeed sports lawyers in general, are almost exclusively transactionalists, and there is nothing transactional about "The Little Book of Golf Law." Worse still, there is little practical advice on how to represent golf courses, less still on advising golf course architects, and absolutely nothing on contracts between pro golfers and their business team members, courses and architects and their subcontractors, manufacturers and distributors. There is no discussion whatsoever about how the golf industry or golf tours work and conduct their business. Here are some suggestions that would improve discussion of the topic significantly: 1. Can the dorky golf stories. Such ham-fisted attempts to somehow link famous events in pro golf to some legal case that doesn't actually involve the protagonists of the anecdote constantly dumbs down the book with vapidity and non-sequiturs. They waste a lawyer's most valuable asset - our time. 2. Ease up on the litigation and add transactional analysis. Break down how the golf tours operate, discuss the intellectual property rights of the manufacturers and how those rights are protected. Provide a detailed analysis of the issues in golf architecture. With such a heavy concentration on case law, his book should be called "Tort Law for Cases Involving Golf." We sports lawyers need much more than that. 3. He missed three big cases: 1) Vijay Singh's lawsuit against the PGA Tour over his suspension on suspicion of Performance Enhancing Drugs; 2) Rory McIlroy's suit against his former manager over the contractual terms of his management agreement; and 3) Sherrill vs. Turning Stone Casino - which involved the non-payment of local tax shenanigans of one of the PGA Tour's venues. 4. Get an editor! It takes Minan eight pages to say what could be said in three. If he had an editor who would do what Ernest Hemingway said and "ruthlessly delete the excess," Minan's book would be a third the size, but three times better. 5. Read some books on style, and check your ego at the door. Minan's constant interjections ruin the flow of the narrative. He violates one of the cardinal laws of style set forth by the two greatest writing teachers, Strunk and White, who warned writers, "Do not adopt a breezy manner." I get that legal writing destroys creative writing skills and that writers need to "stretch their legs" by unwinding on paper, but a law book isn't the place for wild experimentation. Take the subject matter seriously so the reader does the same. Additionally, Minan wastes too much time overstating the obvious. We know that a golf ball to the head hurts, and don't need a mindless observation that it ruined the golfers' day. 6. Co-author the book with someone who does have the expertise needed to elevate the book to the practice standards the ABA needs to provide lawyers working in the industry. Jack Minan may love golf, but his book projects a limited understanding of the game and only a superficial sketch of litigation issues. We need something more practice-oriented and more detailed to be useful.".

> Robert D Ochs, 'Liability for injury on a golf course: There are no absolute tests to govern each and every situation or condition, but an understanding of "reasonable care" does offer a fundamental guideline' (1985) 53(6) Golf Course Management 52, 54, 56, 60-2, 62, 66 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/1985jun52.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/VJ38-9ETB>. 

> Leslie Childs, 'Who's liable when accidents happen at golf clubs?' (1931) 5(6) Golfdom 70-7 <http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/1931jun70.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/A8LG-ZR9Q>. 

• Canada: 

> Stephen Thiele, 'Golf Course Liable For Escaping Golf Balls' (Mondaq, 14 April 2023) <https://www.mondaq.com/canada/sport/1304330/golf-course-liable-for-escaping-golf-balls>, archived at <https://archive.md/Ug4AS>. 

> Manjote Jhaj, 'Out Of Bounds: Mitigating The Risks Of Errant Golf Balls' (Mondaq, 29 August 2023) <https://www.mondaq.com/canada/insurance-laws-and-products/1359976/out-of-bounds-mitigating-the-risks-of-errant-golf-balls>, archived at <https://archive.is/OCyFq>. 

> Kevin Souch and Zachary D'Amico, 'Liability in Golf' (Sorbara Law, Aug 2024) <https://www.sorbaralaw.com/resources/knowledge-centre/publication/liability-in-golf>, archived at <https://archive.is/5rCD9>. 

> See generally, Samuel Beswick, Tort Law: Cases and Commentaries (CanLII, 2024) <https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/1222> (open access).

> ** Thomas H Sawyer, Golf and the Law: A Practitioner's Guide to the Law and Golf Management (Carolina Academic Press, 2005). 

• UK: 

> Duty of care owed, but duty of care discharged: "Around mid-morning, Mr Dear approaches the 6th hole, a par 5. His tee shot lands in a relatively good position, and he’s happy with it. He wants to hit his second shot over the gorse bushes to land at the left of the green. About two thirds of the way up the gorse bushes, Mr Dear sees the top third of a golf cart, but no-one in or around it. Mr Dear thinks the cart could be abandoned. He takes his second shot. When tracking his ball through the air, Mr Dear sees his shot is going slightly offline. As the ball comes in to land, Mr Dear becomes aware of movement from the area of the golf cart. He does not react quickly enough to shout ‘fore’. The ball is then propelled back into the fairway at a right angle. Mr Dear is aware his ball has hit something, but he cannot see what. Mr Dear’s playing partner sees the ball hit a man. This man is Mr McMahon, situated near his golf cart, approximately 220 yards from Mr Dear. From where the playing partner is standing, it looks as though Mr McMahon emerged from the rear of the golf cart and into the line of the ball.": 'The liability of the golfer: a fairway forwards?' (Lexology, 13 June 2014) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=89a49214-f926-443d-91ec-aede74115984>, referring to McMahon v Dear [2014] CSOH 100. 

> distinction made between an amateur golfer and semi-professional (latter who is taken, it seems, to have used care when hitting the ball). See case cited and distinction between amateur golfer case Phee v Gordon [2013] SLT 439.

> Phee v Gordon [2011] CSOH 181. See commentary in John McQuater, 'Phee v Gordon: personal injury - liability - negligence - duty of care - golf courses' (2012) JPI Law 67-71: "Phee was a very inexperienced golfer. He had played golf on only about four previous occasions. He did not have a handicap. He had acquired golf clubs, at a car boot sale, only the week before the accident. He had borrowed a pair of golf shoes to play the round on the day in question. He was not versed or familiar with the rules or etiquette of golf or any local rules which may have applied to the club. He was, in a general sense, having watched golf tournaments on television, aware that the shout "fore" was a warning call shouted by golfers to alert other golfers when a bad or dangerous shot had been struck. He was not however aware of any conventional form of precaution which golfers took or were expected to take on hearing that call. During his round he was the unfortunate victim of a serious accident which occurred when he was struck by a golf ball which had been driven by James Gordon. The accident happened at a spot on a path leading between the 6th green and 7th tee, approximately 15 metres or thereby short of the 7th tee. At the time the four men were proceeding from the 6th green to the 7th tee. They were following a path which had been created or developed by usage along the edge of the 18th fairway. The path was the usual route followed by golfers walking from the 6th green to the 7th tee. The path was narrow being bounded on one side by the 18th fairway and on the other by gorse bushes. The 18th tee was facing them. A person driving a golf ball from that tee would strike the ball down the 18th fairway, the ball travelling towards Phee and his playing companions. Three of the four players, including Phee, were pulling golf trolleys. Because of the narrowness of the path they were proceeding in single file with Phee third in line. Neither at the beginning of this path at or about the 6th green nor on any part of it were there any warning signs alerting users of the path to any potential danger or hazard caused by golfers driving from the 18th tee. At the point where the accident happened the group were approximately 150 yards from the 18th tee. The 18th tee was elevated and stood six metres in height above the level where the group of four were walking. Phee was approximately 12 degrees 30 minutes to the left of the position where the Mr Gordon was teeing off on the 18th tee. When Phee was on the path approximately 15 metres from the 7th tee Gordon struck his tee shot, using a driver club, in the direction of the 18th fairway. Gordon's evidence was that he was aiming at a target area approximately 200 yards in front of the tee and at least 65 yards left of Phee. His shot was a bad one and he immediately became aware that it had veered sharply to the left and was therefore travelling directly in the direction of a group of golfers, claimant and his three companions, whom he could see in the distance approaching the 7th tee. He says that he immediately shouted "fore" in a loud voice as did his playing companion and may also have added a shout of "get down". The first that Phee was aware of anything was when he heard a shout of "fore". He heard only one shout of "fore". He heard no other warning shout. At the time he heard this shout he was pulling, holding with his right hand, a golf trolley. He did not know where the shout of "fore" had come from. His immediate reaction was to duck or crouch down and place his left, or free, hand over his head whilst at the same time trying to look upwards. Whilst in this position he was struck in the eye by the golf ball which had been struck by Mr Gordon. His three companions also heard the shout of "fore". None can recall hearing a second shout of "fore". None of them heard a warning shout of "get down". The three all took avoiding action by ducking and putting their hands over their heads. The four men all say that if there been any warning signs on the path between the 6th green and the 7th tee they would have had regard to them and heeded any precautionary instructions given. There is evidence from the managing director of a golf course design company who says that in the absence of any history of accidents there was no requirement upon the club to take any action in relation to signage on the course. However, there had been no formal risk assessment. The judge held that Gordon, due to his inflated degree of confidence, had overestimated the likelihood of his tee shot following its intended path, simultaneously underestimating the degree of risk to which his shot would place Anthony Phee, and as a result he had made his shot at a time when the exercise of reasonable care should have informed him that there was a foreseeable risk that his shot might be poor and further encroach on the area being traversed the four men. Gordon should have appreciated that at the material time he was a golfer of at best moderate skill and therefore he was more likely than a skilled golfer to make a poor shot, and a golfer of his experience should have been aware of the risk his tee shot posed to a person in Anthony Phee's position at the relevant time. Gordon owed a duty of care to Phee and the primary liability for the accident rested with him to the extent of 70 per cent. However the club had, at the time of the accident, made no effort to conduct a formal risk assessment of their course and the approach the men were taking. The judge held that in considering that no specific action in relation to precautions was required unless there was knowledge of accidents, was unduly restrictive. The placement of signs would have been effective and the failure by the club to provide signs was a failure of their duty owed to persons using the golf course and they were 30 per cent liable for the accident. Anthony Phee recovered in full with no deduction for contributory negligence. ... Golfers, and probably most others involved in sporting activities where other participants (or indeed spectators) may be injured, are likely to owe a duty of care as each of the tests outlined in Caparo Industries v Dickman 2 are likely to be satisfied. In considering whether the duty has been breached: It is correct that if what occurred is foreseeable, but not reasonably foreseeable, that is an issue of breach rather than duty. In other words, as Bolton v Stone put it,3 would a reasonable person, foreseeing the risk, still run it? However as Bolton confirms the risk would have to be very small indeed for a reasonable person to run it and, moreover, there must be some reason for having the run the risk at all. It is perhaps better to say that where there is no need to run the risk it should not be run, rather than seeking to justify unnecessary risk by social utility, applying Tomlinson 4 and the terms of the Compensation Act 2006. In this case, rather like Scout Assoc v Barnes, 5 a needless risk was run because, crucially, the relevant activity could have been pursued without running that risk. Here the first defender simply needed to wait a few moments before striking the ball, which would have had even less consequence for the activity than leaving the lights on in the game which led to the accident in Scout Assoc. As Ward L.J. noted in that case "Scouting would not lose much of its value if the game was not to be played in the dark."" 

> See also, William Norris QC, 'A duty of care in sport: what it actually means' [2017] (3) Journal of Personal Injury Law 154, 166: "What is or is not the appropriate standard will depend on the nature of the sport as well as all the circumstances, so in Phee v Gordon the Court of Session (Inner House) upheld a finding that both the club and the other player were liable when the claimant golfer was struck by mishit ball from an adjacent tee: it adjusted the first-instance findings of liability to hold the golf-course owners 80 per cent and the player 20 per cent liable. In a rather faster moving game, where instant decisions are needed, a court will be less inclined to find liability made out at least as regards the other player."

> See also, Charlesworth and Percy on Negligence, 11th edn, pp.6-13, 7-90.

>  Castle v St Augustine’s Links (1922) 38 T.L.R. 615 (golf ball causing eye injury). See summary of case in Chris Turner, Tort Law (Routledge, 2014) 116 <https://kuclawstudentsunion.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Tort-Law-Chris-Turner-.pdf>: "A taxi driver was hit in the eye by a sliced golf ball. The golf links straddled the highway so the risk of harm was great and it was shown that golf balls regularly came off the course and onto the road. The claim in public nuisance succeeded. The court accepted that the regularity of the occurrence was a significant interference with the public’s use of the highway and the claimant had suffered special damage so the nuisance was proved."

Obvious Risk, ?Dangerous Recreational Activity

• Failing to keep lookout (in circumstances where player in group ahead was looking for ball taking too long) - plaintiff's conduct was materialization of obvious risk: "... On 22 July 2007, Mr Maher ('the plaintiff') and Mr Lidbury ('the defendant') were participating in a charity golf day at the Beresfield Golf Course in Newcastle. It was an Ambrose event (in which a group of four play the best shot in the group with a view to obtaining the lowest score on the hole). The plaintiff and the defendant were playing in different groups. The third and fourth hole of the course ran 'head to toe' and parallel. There was a small creek that cut both fairways and a small bridge that led from the third fairway to the fourth fairway. After hitting his ball somewhere onto the edge of the third fairway from the fourth fairway, the plaintiff entered the third fairway to look for his ball. He proceeded up the side of the fairway towards a group of four players (which included the defendant) on the third tee. Whilst looking for his ball he was struck in his left eye by the defendant's tee shot. As a result of his injuries, his left eye was removed. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages, alleging that he failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to direct his shot with due care and took his tee shot when it was unsafe for him to do so.The defendant had approximately 30 years experience playing golf and at the time of the accident was the second person in his group of four to take his tee shot. His evidence was that he looked but did not see the plaintiff prior to taking his tee shot. That evidence was supported by the other three golfers playing in his group. The defendant also gave evidence that he surveyed the entire fairway to ensure it was safe to tee off but that, during his 'routine' of addressing the ball and preparing to take his tee shot, he did not again look towards the area where the plaintiff was apparently looking for his ball, as the hole curved slightly to the right, meaning that the plaintiff was essentially in his 'blind spot'. In cross examination he conceded that the length of his routine could have been as long as one to one and a half minutes. ... Judge Rolfe found that the defendant was negligent in the manner in which he took his tee shot in the circumstances of the case. The judge found that the defendant ought to have seen the plaintiff in the position he was standing on the third fairway during his 'routine' of addressing the ball and that it was unsafe for him to take the tee shot after not looking down the fairway for one to one and a half minutes during his 'routine'. [BUT] The defendant pleaded that section 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ('CLA') should apply and that the plaintiff's injuries materialised from an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity. The defendant argued that golf was a recreational activity within the meaning of s5K of the CLA and that the definitions of 'obvious risk' and 'dangerous recreational activity' in sections 5K and 5F applied to the case. The judge reviewed the Court of Appeal authorities dealing with section 5L of the CLA, including Fallas v Mourlas (a case involving the accidental discharge of a handgun during kangaroo 'spotlighting') and Falvo v Australian Oztag Sports Association. In addition, more recent Supreme Court decisions of Laoulach v El Khoury & Ors (a case which involved the plaintiff diving off a boat into Botany Bay) and Vreman and Anor v Albury City Council (a case which involved plaintiffs injured as a result of falls from bikes at a purpose built skate park constructed and controlled by the defendant). Ultimately, the judge found that the plaintiff had seen the defendant's group of players readying themselves on the third tee but decided that he had enough time to find his ball. Judge Rolfe found that the plaintiff was grossly in error in that judgment and it was likely that he had not yet crossed the bridge between the holes at the time that the defendant surveyed the fairway and made his decision that it was safe to tee off. The judge therefore held that the plaintiff's conduct on the third hole involved a materialisation of an 'obvious risk' of a 'dangerous recreational' activity and therefore the defendant was not liable.": Raphael Perla, 'To tee or not to tee – that is the question?' (Mondaq, 14 April 2011) <https://www.mondaq.com/australia/personal-injury/129422/to-tee-or-not-to-tee-that-is-the-question>, archived at <https://archive.md/hAw8J>, referring to John Maher v Mark Lidbury [2011] DCNSW ex-tempore (Newcastle Registry, No. 89/09, 200900332727), Unreported (not able to locate a written decision). 

> but see: NSW Bar Association, Common Law Practice Update, Volume 1, p 4 <https://nswbar.asn.au/docs/webdocs/clpuv1.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/BZ9F-CBN7>: "... In Maher v Lidbury (NSW DC unreported 18/3/2011) (Rolfe DCJ), it was held that social golf was caught by Section 5L."; See also, NSW Bar Association, Aug 2012 Common Law Practice Update, <https://nswbar.asn.au/circulars/2012/aug/clpn3.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/EJK8-5Z62>: "In Maher v Lidbury (NSW DC unreported 18/3/2011) (Rolfe DCJ), it was held that social golf was caught by Section 5L." -- this is likely a put too high. 

> in absence of written judgement, caution advised. 'Obvious risk' appears to be the risk of getting hit in the circumstances that the plaintiff, having hit his ball from the 4th tee to the 3rd fairway, took the risk (which was a gross error of judgment on his part) of going onto the 3rd fairway to look for his ball, and knew or ought to have known that the next flight would start to tee-off in circumstances that they could not visually see the plaintiff.

> See also Pollard v Trude above. QCA -- similar issue - going ahead of play == going behind play.

> * possibly unventilated issues of pace of play, Club's control and superintendence of the course' pace of play?; was adequate time given to player to find ball? (Rule 18.2a of the Golf Rules permits at least 3 minutes to search for a ball); did group behind failed to give way to group in front - give due regard to pace of play?

> transcript of ex-tempore decision may be available via 'Non-Party Access to Material Held by the Court' under the Rules of Court NSW. 

• Obvious risk - limited to specific circumstances (eg, going ahead of play to look for ball): "... Some examples of the determination of ‘obvious risk’ include diving cases, in which courts have repeatedly held that sustaining serious injury is an obvious risk of diving into water of unknown depth;8 similarly, being hit by a golf ball struck without prior warning by a fellow golfer is an obvious risk of golf, at least where the plaintiff knew that the defendant was about to take his or her shot. ...": Joachim Dietrich, 'Personal Injuries and Recreational Activities' (2013) 115 Precedent 32 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2013/26.html>, referring to Pollard v Trude [2009] 2 Qd R 248; [2008] QCA 421; See also, Joachim Dietrich, 'Liability for personal injuries from recreational services and the new Australian Consumer Law: Uniformity and simplification, or still a mess?' (2011) 19 Torts Law Journal 55, pt 5: ".. being hit by a golf ball struck without prior warning by a fellow golfer is an obvious risk of golf, at least where the plaintiff knew that the defendant was about to take his shot."

• Joachim Dietrich, 'Liability for Negligence in the Australian Fitness Industry' (Paper, Bond University, 2012) <https://bp-fitnessaustralia-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/uploaded_file/file/246/Liability-for-Negligence-in-the-Australian-Fitness-Industry-Report.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/LJ5T-HAZV>. 

Commentary on state of the law on golfers' liability

• "In Australia, there are few reported cases of golf-related injuries in legal literature, despite hospital records showing a range of injuries being treated every year. It is suggested that many golf-related personal injury cases are either not pursued or are settled outside of court.": ‘Golf course safety – Who is liable for injury, the player or the facility?’ (CCI Safety Fencing, Webpage) <https://www.ccisafetyfencing.com.au/golf-course-safety-who-is-liable-for-injury-the-player-or-the-facility/>, archived at <https://archive.is/JfyJP>. 

• "... The legal landscape surrounding liability for injuries from wayward golf balls is murky, with substantial financial risks for course owners. Each case’s liability depends on specific circumstances. In Australia, reported golf injuries are rare, despite hospital records indicating a range of cases annually. Many personal injury claims are either not pursued or settled outside of court. A notable case occurred in 1994 when Glen Thomas Ollier was seriously injured by a stray shot during a charity game, leading to a $2.6 million award against the player, not the golf club. ...": 'Risk & Insurance: Golf Ball Liability' (Inside Golf, 19 November 2024) <https://www.insidegolf.com.au/golf_industry/golf-industry-news/risk-insurance-golf-ball-liability/>, archived at <https://archive.md/okfba>.

• Sports, generally: 'Sporting injuries: What are your legal rights?' (Shine Lawyers, Webpage) <https://www.shine.com.au/resources/public-liability/sporting-injury-compensation>. 

[A.1] Players Ethics and Etiquette

• Josh Sens, 'The Etiquetteist: If your golf ball damages personal property, should you confess?' (Golf.com, 27 April 2022) <https://golf.com/lifestyle/golf-ball-damages-property-should-you-confess/?amp=1>, archived at <https://archive.md/PDsc1>.  

• Calling others through: 

> Josh Sens, 'The Etiquetteist: When should you feel obliged to let a single play through?' (Golf.com, 30 April 2023) <https://golf.com/lifestyle/when-should-you-let-a-single-golf-play-through/>, archived at <https://archive.is/2GY9z> -- care must be taken, however, when deciding to call someone through, see discussion on Woods v Roberts (1997) below; see also, R&A, Pace of Play Manual ch 4. 

> Steve Carroll, 'It’s one of golf’s most awkward situations – so what’s the right way to let people play through?' (National Club Golfer, 13 September 2004) <https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/club/features/golf-etiquette-playing-through/>, archived at <https://archive.is/3xDqr>: "There is plenty of etiquette set down for when a faster group should be given rite of passage but are there any guidelines for how you should let them pass? Should you just step to one side and then wait until they’ve cleared the green or is it acceptable to keep going and put on the brakes only when it becomes inconvenient to play on? I definitely prefer the former. I think if you’ve given someone the courtesy of playing through you should just stay where you are until they have, you know, ‘played through’. My worst kerfuffle on a golf course came in a very similar circumstance when the trio in front, having waved us on, eventually found the ball they’d been looking for and rescinded the offer.  As we were practically passing them on the fairway, they just started hitting their shots again and swept back in front. I was incandescent. It’s exactly these kinds of half measures that lead to disagreements. Who wants to cloud their day with a silly, and entirely avoidable, head-to-head? So if you look back, see me, and are courteous enough to ever let me go past, can you do me a favour and just stay where you are?".

> *** Lost ball, finding balls, pace of play etc: 

-> 'Ettiquette' (Metropolitan Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.metropolitangolf.com.au/cms/golf/rules-etiquette/playing-guidelines/>, archived at <https://archive.md/F76P6>: "... 9. Following players MUST be called through if you fall one hole behind the group in front. 10. Call following players through if they are waiting and you ball is not immediately found. You may search for your ball for 3 minutes. Players who call through another match should not resume play until the players called through are safely out of range. ..."

-> 'Golf Etiquette' (Woodburn-Evans Head Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.woodburn-evansheadgolfclub.com.au/golf-etiquette>, archived at <https://archive.is/uq3vy>: "... Players looking for a lost ball should allow other players coming up behind them to play through. Having given such a signal, they should not continue to play until these players have moved out of range. ...".

-> 'Golf Etiquette' (Bright Country Golf Club, Webpage) <https://brightgolf.org.au/golf-etiquette/>, archived at <https://archive.is/OfCIJ>: "... n the interest of all, players should play without delay. If you have lost a ball or are for any other reason unable to maintain your place in the field, never hesitate to call the following players through. This is their right and should always be voluntarily and  cheerfully given. If this right, when due, is not given after a reasonable opportunity has been given for doing so, it should be demanded in the traditional way by calling "Fore" and then awaiting signal. It is a traditional rule that the following players are called through if they are moving faster, and should always be called if the proceeding players are a fairway's length ahead. ..."

-> 'Pace of Play' (Green Acres Golf Club, 2018) <https://greenacres-golfclub.co.uk/category/m-and-h/>, archived at <https://archive.md/PU9Nn>: " ... Out of Position Groups who are out of position on the course are asked to speed up their play; keeping in mind the Club encourages all members to play ready golf when safe to do so and/or call the group behind through at the earliest possible opportunity. Behind Time & Out of Position Groups who are out of position on the course and behind the published timing per hole are expected to speed up their play.  If they are unable to close the gap they MUST call the group behind through at the earliest possible opportunity. If you fail to do so you must report to M&H at the earliest possible opportunity the reason for delay. Groups who are not called through are asked to report the issue to Match & Handicap who will investigate the matter the following week and if required assign a representative to monitor the group with the power to: Advise the group it is behind the pace of play and give them the opportunity to speed up. Impose a two-shot penalty if the gap is not closed. Disqualify the group from the competition should the problem persist through-out the round. Members who are repeatedly out of position and behind the pace of play timing will be referred to Council for further action which could include loss of tee time."

-> 'Membership Info' (Araluen Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.araluengolfclub.com.au/member-info-_mobile.html>, archived at <https://archive.md/88gRQ>: "... Players should play at all times without delay. Players searching for a ball should signal the players behind them to pass as soon as it becomes apparent that the ball will not easily be found. They should not search for five minutes before doing so. Players who call through another match should not continue to play until the players called through are out of range."; See also <https://www.araluengolfclub.com.au/news/ewExternalFiles/July%20to%20end%20December%202024%20Full%20Book.pdf>. 

-> 'Competition Rules & Etiquette' (Trafalgar Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.trafalgargolf.com.au/the-course/competition-rules-etiquette/>, archived at <https://archive.md/hTlT8>: "... CALLING THROUGH If you have lost a ball or for any other reason are unable to maintain your place in the field, never hesitate to call the following players through. This is their right and should always be voluntarily and cheerfully given. If this right, when due, is not given, after a reasonable opportunity has been given for doing so, it should be demanded in the traditional way by calling “Fore” and then awaiting signal. It is a traditional rule that following players are called through if they are moving faster and should always be called through if the preceding players are a fairway length ahead."

-> 'Course Care & Etiquette' (Yering Meadows Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.yeringmeadows.com.au/cms/golf/etiquette-course-care/>, archived at <https://archive.md/SwY52>: "... Players should at all times play without undue delay. Slow players who fall a complete hole behind, impede the remainder of the field and must call the following players through. When a ball is lost the player/s following must be called through immediately. ..."

-> 'Etiquette & Rules' (Yallourn Golf Club, 2023) <https://www.yallourngolfclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BiLaws-2023.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/6MLF-DYLJ>; See also, <https://yallourngolfclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ygc.pdf>.

-> 'The Coast Golf Club - Local Rules' (The Coast Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.coastgolf.com.au/cms/play/local-rules-course-conditions/>, archived at <https://archive.md/NySaJ>: "... SLOW PLAY / PACE OF PLAY The Coast Golf Club endorses and recommends READY GOLF – Hit when READY If a group loses a hole on the group in front for whatever reason, then the following group must be called through. ..."

-> 'Enjoyable Experience' (Shelly Beach Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.shellybeachgolfclub.com.au/golf/conditions-guidelines-of-play/>, archived at <https://archive.md/oHfaO>: "... Rule 2: ... During play, only a player, the partner and caddies should search for a ball. If others join the search, the following group of players must be called through immediately. ...".

-> 'Conditions of Play' (Forster Tuncurry Golf Club Limited, September 2024) 5 <https://forstertuncurrygolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/FTGC-Conditions-of-Play-revised-09-Sep-24-v1.4.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/W737-WKWF>: "Slow play is selfish play. Play Ready Golf. Keep up with the group in front. Players are reminded that their position in the field is directly behind the group in front of them. It is the responsibility of each player in the group to maintain their position in the field. Any group losing a complete fairway during a competition round first will be warned and if they fail to improve their position, each player in that group will be penalised. In case of a lost ball, if the ball cannot be found within 3 minutes and the next group is waiting to play, that group should be called through."

-> 'Members Area' (Melbourne Airport Golf Club, Webpage) <https://melbourneairportgolfclub.com.au/?page_id=3441>, archived at <https://perma.cc/Y3JG-QFJB>: "... 4. Etiquette of the Game of Golf ... 6. Players while searching for a ball should allow other players coming up to pass them. They should signal to the players following them to pass and having given the signal should not continue their play until those players have passed and are out of range. Whilst the rules allow a player to take 3 mins to find the ball, this Does Not mean search fully 3 mins before checking behind and calling others through. (Refer to definitions- Lost Ball) or if not quickly located and your group has fallen behind play, then call through while you continue searching. ... 6. On the Course ... 1. Slow Play ... It should be remembered that whenever players fail to keep their places in the field and lose one clear hole behind those immediatelhy preceding them, the group following have the right to go through. The low marker in a group is responsible for etiquette and the observance of the Rules of the order of Play. He /she must call the following group through without being asked. The regular recurring problem of “slow play” is discussed consistently amongst members and with that thought almost every player member of the club has at some time expressed concern about the effects of slow play on their enjoyment of the game, we publish the following 10 suggestions which could be of assistance in overcoming this problem" ... Problem 5:Delays in locating a lost ball Solution:If, after a reasonable period, it is apparent your are holding up play, call the next group through Problem 6:Lack of discretion in going through a team that has lost a ball. Solution:If called ahead as in (5) but immediately afterwards the team ahead locate their ball and it is evident that play will proceed faster if they continue, you should signal them to go ahead. (Note: the discretion is in the hands of the team called through and not the players who have lost their ball) ..."

> ** ?'right of way', discretion of team behind to be called through: 

-> 'Golf Fixtures for 2024-2025' (Maryborough Golf Club) <https://maryboroughgolfclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/full-fixture-24-25-booklet.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9CJX-LHPK>: "... Slow Play ... The regular occurrence of “slow play” is discussed consistently among members and, with the thought that almost every player-member of the Club has at some time expressed concern about the effects of slow play on their enjoyment of the game, we publish the ten following suggestions which could be of assistance in overcoming the problem.  Not being ready on time. Select club and ball while other players are having their shots.  Delays on Tees or Greens while marking the card. Always mark your card while waiting your turn at the tee.  Players wait in a group whilst others play their shots, then walk to their own ball. Walk directly to your own ball, or level with same; and select club to be used while waiting for others to play their shots. Taking care at all times that you do not put yourself in danger of being hit by other players.  Unnecessary number of practice swings. It is agreed that every player has his own preference in this matter but practice swings should be limited by discretion.  Holding Up Play eg When Looking For a Lost Ball. If it is apparent that you are holding up play, call next group through.  Lack of discretion in going through a team that has lost a ball. If called ahead as in (5) but immediately afterwards the team ahead locate their ball and it is evident that play will proceed faster if they continue, you should signal them to go ahead. Note: The discretion is in the hands of the team called through and not the players who were looking for the lost ball. ..."

-> '2024 Program' (Leeton Golf Club) <https://www.leetongolf.com.au/cms/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-2024-program-draft.docx>. 

-> '2022 Members & Associates Fixtures' (Cabramatta Golf Club, 2022) 4 <https://www.cabragolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Fixture-Book-21-22.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/C54G-8KZJ>: "The regular occurrence of "Slow Play" is discussed consistently among members, and with the thought that almost every player/member of the Club has at some time expressed concern, about the effects of Slow Play on their enjoyment of the game, we publish the following ten suggestions which could be of assistance in overcoming the problem. ... Slow Play ... 5. Delays in locating lost balls - If, after a reasonable period (3minutes), it is apparent you are holding up play call next group through. 6. Lack of discretion in going through a team that has lost a ball - If called ahead as in (5) but immediately afterwards the team ahead locate their ball and it is evident that play will proceed faster if they continue; you should signal them to go ahead. NOTE: The discretion is in the hands of the team called through and not the players who were looking for the lost ball."; See also, 2023 Fixtures booklet <https://www.cabragolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Cabramatta-Golf-Fixtures-2023.pdf>. 

->  'Golf Fixtures' (Catalina Club, 2024) 9-10 <https://catalinaclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Golf_Fixtures_Guide_2024_final.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/TQ2S-6ZT2>: "9. Players searching for a ball should signal the following group to pass through as soon as it is apparent that the ball is lost, and not after the three minutes search time has elapsed. Players must not continue until those who were following have passed through and are out of range. 10. Groups must remain in contact with the group in front. Failing this, the group behind are within their right to be expected to be called through to maintain flow on the golf course. The group overtaken must not play on until the group in front are out of range."; See also, 2025 Fixtures Booklet, p 8: <https://catalinaclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CC_Fixtures_Guide_2025_WEB.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/B2LY-S829>. 

• Peter Post, Playing Through: A Guide to the Unwritten Rules of Golf (HarperCollins, 2011) <https://www.harpercollins.com.au/9780062132970/playing-through/>. 

• A Report into Pace of Play at Australian Golf Clubs (Golf Australia, GBAS, 2015) <http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00023357-source.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/7C93-KEWX>.  

[A.2] Scope of the Duty: 

• US Case Law: 

> " ... In general, a golfer preparing to drive a ball has no duty to warn persons "not in the intended line of flight on another tee or fairway" (Jenks v McGranaghan, 30 N.Y.2d 475, 479; see generally, Annotation, Liability to One Struck by Golf Ball, 53 ALR4th 282). Even more to the point, whatever the extent of 732*732 a golfer's duty to other players in the immediate vicinity on the golf course (see, Johnston v Blanchard, 301 N.Y. 599), a golfer ordinarily may not be held liable to individuals located entirely outside of the boundaries of the golf course who happen to be hit by a stray, mishit ball (see, Nussbaum v Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311, 318). ...": Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 NY 2d 729 (1991), 731-2 <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=7162996048865371011>. 

> "... A golfer has a duty to give a timely warning to other persons within the foreseeable ambit of danger (Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N Y 2d 311, 318; Trauman v. City of New York, 208 Misc. 252, 256; Ann., Golf Course — Liability for Injury, 82 ALR 2d 1183, 1185). The mere fact that a ball does not travel the intended course does not establish negligence. "[E]ven the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional `hook' or `slice'" (Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N Y 2d, at p. 319). Thus, generally, there is no duty to warn persons not in the intended line of flight on another tee or fairway of an intention to drive (Rocchio v. Frers, 248 App. Div. 786; Trauman v. City of New York, 208 Misc., at pp. 256-257; Houston v. Escott, 85 F.Supp. 59; Strand v. Conner, 207 Cal. App. 2d 473, 474, 476; Rose v. Morris, 97 Ga. App. 764, 768; Mazzuchelli v. Nissenbaum, 355 Mass. 788; Ann., Golf Course — Liability for Injury, 82 ALR 2d 1183, 1187-1188, supra). .For example, in the Trauman case (208 Misc. 252, supra), plaintiff was struck by a tee shot from the first tee while standing in the ninth fairway. Plaintiff was about 100 feet from the tee, only about 20 to 25 feet from the intended line of flight (208 Misc., at pp. 254-255). Plaintiff did not see defendant tee off. The court held that defendant was under no duty to yell "fore" to warn plaintiff that he might be endangered by a bad shot (id., at p. 256). Similarly, in the Rose case (97 Ga. App. 764, supra), plaintiff was struck while standing in a fairway 125 yards from the tee of another hole. Plaintiff was only 17 degrees off the line of the intended flight of the ball. The Georgia court held as a matter of law that there was no negligence in failing to give advance warning. (97 Ga. App., at p. 768.)..": Jenks v. McGranaghan, 30 NY 2d 475 (1972), 479 (Breitel J).

> "... The defendant relies on the Benjamin Case, 102 Pa.Super.Ct. 471, 157 Atl. 10, to support his contention that the plaintiff assumed the risk. The facts in that case show that a ball driven from the seventh tee struck the plaintiff, who was putting on the sixth green; that this green is 120 feet to the left and about 100 feet forward of the seventh tee, which indicates an angle of more than fifty degrees. The court held that the driver from that tee owed no duty to a person on the green to give warning of his intention to drive, and, therefore, was guilty of no negligence. Furthermore, it is stated in November, 1931, Law Notes, in an article entitled the Hazards of Golf, "that this decision, * * *, is not in accord with the other authorities" heretofore reviewed. In the case at bar it was not denied that a person standing within an angle of thirty-three degrees from the intended line of flight of the ball and within fifty-nine feet of the player making the stroke was in danger of being hit by the driven ball. In the case of Schlenger Weinberg, 107 N.J. Law 130, 150 Atl. 434, 435, 69 A.L.R. 738, the court said: "* * * a golf course is not usually considered a dangerous place, nor the playing of golf a hazardous undertaking. It is a matter of common knowledge that players are expected not to drive their balls without giving warning when within hitting distance of persons in the field of play, and that countless persons traverse golf courses the world over in reliance on that very general expectation.": Alexander v. Wrenn, 158 Va. 486 (1932), 496 <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=13438594175834963299>. 

> " ... Golfers in North Carolina indeed have a duty to "give adequate and timely notice to persons who appear to be unaware of their intentions to hit the ball when they know, or should know, that such persons are so close to the intended flight of the ball that danger to them may be reasonably anticipated." McWilliams v. Parham, 273 N.C. 592, 597, 160 S.E.2d 692 (1968) (cleaned up). However, they are not "insurer[s] of such persons, nor does such duty arise for the benefit of persons situate[d] in a place where danger from the driven ball might not be reasonably anticipated." Id. ... ": Moseley v. Hendricks, 897 SE 2d 680 (2024) 686 <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=13727543734410004409>. 

> (bystander, course attendee) "... Pfenning brought suit against the owner of the golf course, the scramble organizer, her grandfather, and the golfer who hit the shot that injured her, raising claims of general negligence, negligent supervision, and premises liability. Id. at 396. All the defendants sought, and were awarded, summary judgment. Id. In affirming the grant of summary judgment on the claim of the golfer's liability, the court noted that "strong public policy considerations favor the encouragement of participation in athletic activities and the discouragement of excessive litigation of claims by persons who suffer injuries from participants' conduct" and, thus, that sound policy reasons supported enhanced protection against liability to co-participants in sports events. Id. at 403. The court observed that a plaintiff seeking damages based on negligence must establish that the defendant owed him a duty, that duty was breached, and the plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the breach. Id. at 397. While the issue of breach of duty of care towards others engaged in the sport usually entails an evaluation of reasonableness by the fact-finder, the court adopted a new rule limited to sports activity cases that, as a matter of law, when a sports participant injures another while engaging in conduct ordinary to the sport, without intent or recklessness, the participant breaches no duty for purposes of a negligence claim. Id. at 404. The court held that the acts of hitting an errant golf shot and not yelling "fore" were activities within the range of ordinary conduct for golfers, and was, thus, reasonable as a matter of law, precluding a finding on the element of breach necessary for a negligence action. Id. at 404-05. ...": Cruz v. New Centaur, LLC, 150 NE 3d 1051 (2020), 1056 <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=13090161935308635630>. 

> (bystander, course attendee): " In Pfenning, a teenager was attending a golf scramble with her grandfather. The two were volunteering on the drink cart that serves the participants. Neither was intending to golf and the teenager was relatively unfamiliar with the sport. The grandfather selected the cart they would use. The cart had windows, but there was conflicting evidence as to whether the cart was equipped with a roof. Shortly after he selected the cart, the grandfather left the teenager on her own so he could join a shorthanded group of golfers. While on her own, the teenager suffered injuries to her face after she was hit by a golf ball that was struck by a participating golfer. The teenager brought negligence claims against multiple parties including the golfer. [15] Refusing to analyze the particular circumstances of the shot, including whether or not the golfer gave a warning shout of "fore," the court held that the golfer's behavior was ordinary. Pfenning, 947 N.E.2d at 404. The court explained that due to the variable nature of golf, hitting an errant drive even without a warning is 218*218 "clearly within the range of ordinary behavior of golfers and thus is reasonable as a matter of law and does not establish the element of breach [of duty]." Id. Because of this, the court determined that the golfer was not liable under a theory of negligence and affirmed the trial court's award of summary judgment to the golfer. Id. at 404-05. ... ": Tippecanoe School Corp. v. Reynolds, 187 NE 3d 213 (2022), 217-8 <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=13280270283841558037>. 

[B] Standard of Care

• Duty to warn of the risk of harm by errant ball, breach of standard of care not made out: Pollard v Trude [2008] QCA 421, [2]-[3] (McMurdo P), [35], [37]-[39] (Holmes JA). 

• Duty to warn of hazards (wildlife): Omission by a golf club to warn kangaroos might attack players amounted to a breach of duty: Shorten v Grafton District Golf Club Ltd [2000] NSWCA 58, [14]-[16]. 

> See also, Rachael Mulheron, 'Anyone for Golf? - But Mind the Kangaroos' (2000) 27(5) Brief 18. 

> See also, Rachael Mulheron, ' Golf, Kangaroos and Negligence 'Down Under'' (2000) 144 Solicitors' Journal 494. 

• Breach not made out, see Buttita v Strathfield Municipal Council [2001] NSWCA 365, [6], [9]-[12] (Giles JA) (the plaintiff fell on a wet and slippery slope near the green on a golf course breaking his ankle. The NSW Court of Appeal held that there was no breach of any duty of care in the circumstances. The Court commented that: “The respondent was not the appellant's nursemaid.)

> Commentary on CCH, 'Case discussion — breach of duty by public authorities (injury claims)', ¶1-797: "The plaintiff was a frequent golfer at a course owned and operated by the defendant. On the particular day the plaintiff had paid his green fees and was playing a round of golf. On the sixteenth hole the plaintiff played an approach shot which overshot the green. The plaintiff’s ball finished at the bottom of a moderately steep downward slope at the rear of the green. The plaintiff began to descend the slope to reach his ball when he slipped and fell, breaking his ankle. The judge at first instance dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed. Giles JA, with whom Spigelman CJ and Fitzgerald AJA agreed, held that even if the court accepted the duty of care advocated by the appellant, his Honour was satisfied the respondent did not breach its duty of care to the plaintiff. His Honour stated, “Golf courses are not nurseries... Reasonable care to make a course safe for the purpose of playing golf does not require that every slope which may be slippery either is not initially constructed, or is reconfigured, or is barricaded off or signposted.” His Honour also found there was nothing unusual about the slope and that it was relevant to what reasonable care required that in over 50,000 rounds of golf played prior to the appellant’s fall: “no fall or complaints of unsafety in relation to this slope had been reported to the course professional and there was no evidence of any other report of a fall or complaint of slipperiness” (at para [9]). Giles JA referred to Romeo in which it was emphasised that the required response to a foreseeable risk is a reasonable response, not one of absolute protection. His Honour also referred to Mason P’s statement in Franklins Self Serve Pty Ltd v Bozinovska (NSWCA 14 October 1998 unreported), namely “in some circumstances the danger is so obvious that, when coupled with the likelihood that persons will exercise reasonable care for their own safety, the duty is exercised by letting the plainly obvious speak for itself”. The court found there was no breach of duty of care and that “the respondent was not the appellant’s nursemaid” (at para [12])". 

• Benness v Town of Cambridge [2000] WADC 197.

• Woods v Roberts (unreported, SA Sup Ct FC, 5 December 1997); [1997] SASC 6467; 195 LSJS 328 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/1997/6467.html>: "Having made those findings, the question which the learned trial judge posed for himself was “whether the defendant, knowing that there were two players ahead of him and not having followed them by sight as they walked from the fourth tee and seeing one signalling player closer to him and a buggy further on, was obliged to wait further before hitting so that he could be satisfied that the unseen player, wherever he may be, was safely out of harm’s way”. He held that, having been called through by Mr Fulton, the respondent was entitled in those circumstances to infer that the inviting player had told his partner of that fact, and that those players were in a safe position for the respondent to hit his ball, even though they were within range of being hit. He gave judgment for the respondent. ... The question remains, however, whether the respondent should have refrained from hitting the ball in the circumstances as they then were. In the absence of being called through by Mr Fulton, there is no doubt that the respondent had a duty to ensure that the course ahead of him and within his striking range was clear of people who might be injured by his golf ball. Here, however, the finding of the trial judge, which cannot be disturbed on appeal, is that Mr Fulton in fact waved the respondent through. Mrs Shaw argued that notwithstanding the call, the respondent had a duty to ensure that the appellant had heeded Mr Fulton’s call or that the respondent had reasonable grounds for believing that it had been heeded by Mr Fulton’s partner. The respondent in his evidence (AB 139) said that he understood that he was being called through on behalf of the group ahead of him. The appellant in his evidence (AB 68-69) agreed that the following player, when called through, is being called through on behalf of the group. Thus, as both parties conceded in their evidence, the respondent was entitled to infer, as the learned trial judge found, that the inviting player was doing so on behalf of his partner, and to infer that his partner was aware of the invitation. He could therefore assume that Fulton and his partner would maintain an adequate lookout and be in a position to protect themselves should his ball approach one of them. As was pointed out in argument, to hold otherwise would be to require the respondent, notwithstanding the accepted courtesy, to satisfy himself by one means or another that every person within his hitting range, whether visible or not, was aware of his intention to tee off. That would render, in many circumstances, the operation of the convention on playing through quite impracticable. In my opinion, having been waved through by Mr Fulton, the respondent was not under an obligation to move to his right on the tee to see if he could see where the appellant was.  It might have been different if there were something within his field of vision, or something within his field of attention arising out of other surrounding circumstances, which might reasonably have raised a suspicion in his mind that another player was unaware of the signal or of his intention to hit off.  However, such was not the case.  It is true that if he had walked to the right‑hand side of the tee block he probably would have seen the appellant.  What he saw of the appellant may or may not have alerted him to the appellant’s ignorance of his intention.  However, if it were to be held that in the circumstances he was obliged to take that precaution, it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that, if he did not then see the appellant, he should have gone much further to ensure that he and anyone else within his possible hitting range was accounted for.  Even on a straight hole this might be impracticable in the presence of trees and foliage lining the fairway.  What we must do is examine the respondent’s conduct in the light of all the surrounding circumstances.  Taking those into account and in particular the invitation to play through and the parties’ understanding of the effect of that invitation, the respondent was entitled to proceed. It does not matter if, on the appellant’s evidence, the appellant was not aware of Mr Fulton waving the respondent through or that he did not hear Fulton say that he would do so.  That might affect questions of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, and it might affect the liability of Mr Fulton to the appellant if he were sued by the appellant.  However, that cannot affect the existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant and whether, in the circumstances, that duty has been breached. We were referred to a number of cases involving golfing accidents.  I find such cases unhelpful, as they each depend on their own particular circumstances, and are merely examples of the application of the general principles of tortious liability described by the High Court in Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383 especially per Kitto J at 387-388. In all the circumstances of this case I do not consider that the respondent was in breach of his duty of care to the appellant." 

> See also, Westlaw, Personal Injury Law Manual NSW, Sporting Injuries, PINSW 487814861 [SI.120]: "the plaintiff golfer was struck by a ball hit by another player. The defendant had been “called through” by the plaintiff's playing partner. It was held on the facts that negligence had not been established."

> Special leave to appeal to the High Court refused. See, Woods v Roberts [1998] HCATrans 294 <https://jade.io/article/231025>.

• Breach of field of play rules - conduct unbecoming: Oei v The Australian Golf Club [2016] NSWSC 846. 

> See, Case Summary: <https://eprints.qut.edu.au/135254/1/27%20-%20Oei%20v%20The%20Australian%20Golf%20Club%20%5B2016%5D%20NSWSC%202016.pdf>. 

• Tresspass - see below.

• 'Sporting Accidents – playing within the rules' (Travis Schultz, 15 October 2018) <https://www.schultzlaw.com.au/sporting-accidents-playing-within-the-rules/>, archived at <https://archive.is/X8Qcc>. 

• UK: 

> ** Bad tee shot - turns on fact - knowledge that he could hit a bad tee shot in circumstances that his team had already done so - negligent in taking tee shot, slice: John Ure v Stewart Muir (Court of Sessions, Edinburgh, 2015; PD 1879/14) -- appears to be unreported: 

-> "... Cost of a wayward shot [:] In John Ure v Stewart Muir, PD 1879/14, the cost of not seeing the prospect of injuring another golfer proved to be the measure of £10,000, when the Court of Session recently awarded that sum in damages to a golfer struck on the head by another player’s shot that went “out of control”. Although a golf ball typically does leave control when it is propelled into the air, the player striking the ball was found to have caused injury which was reasonably foreseeable. A determining factor, as reported, was that the liable player ought to have exercised more caution because a player in his group had already hit a wayward shot in the injured player’s direction, thus highlighting that the injured player was in range. This poses an interesting dilemma for players of differing standards playing together, if courts consider that one player’s shot is a guide to the possibilities of another’s. The agreed damages reflected Ure being knocked to the ground, and reporting nausea and physical sickness for the rest of the day, requiring a hospital visit. Intermittent headaches, nausea and a diminished appetite for the game followed, leading to the five-figure award. The case follows the earlier Court of Session ruling in Gordon v Phee [2013] CSIH 18, and serves as a further warning to golf club committees to continue to promote personal insurance for golfers, and for golfers to heed the need to be safe, rather than to complete their round quickly.": Bruce Caldow. 'Are the “essential requirements for fairness” in sports dispute hearings appropriate to ensure that justice is done?' (Harper Macleod LLP, 5 December 2014) <https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/insights/are-the-essential-requirements-for-fairness-in-sports-dispute-hearings-appropriate-to-ensure-that-justice-is-done/>, archived at <https://archive.md/cA1fl>. 

-> "... The judgment in the case of John Ure v Stewart Muir was handed down last month, though the full decision has not been published. It was decided by Lord Brailsford, who is making something of a name for himself amongst Scottish golfers, as he was also the first instance judge in Phee v Gordon: [2011] CSOH 181. On 9 March 2013 Mr Ure was playing as part of a three-ball at Bellshill Golf Club in Lanarkshire, and was on the 10th fairway when he was hit on the head by a ball struck by Mr Muir. Mr Muir was also playing as part of a separate three-ball, and had just teed off at the ninth. The two holes ran parallel, playing in opposite directions, separated by moderate rough and semi-mature trees, and Mr Muir’s tee-shot had veered off to the right by around 19 degrees as soon as it was struck. Liability points The court accepted expert evidence that 92% of all golf shots land within 15 degrees left or right of the target line, but that a shot like Mr Muir’s was a “material risk”. Mr Muir ought to have been aware that bad, or indeed very bad, shots were occasionally struck by all golfers. Mr Ure’s party ought therefore to have been in Mr Muir’s contemplation at tee off, and his failure to consider them amounted to negligence. Mr Muir was the third in his party to tee off, and it was of importance to the judge in finding him fully liable that one of his playing partners had already sliced the ball off the same tee in a similar fashion. What of the time honoured tradition of shouting “Fore!” when things go so badly wrong? In Mr Ure’s case it was accepted that he simply did not hear it. In the Phee case, the call was heard but no contributory negligence attached for two reasons: Mr Phee had only a split second to react, and in any event reacting incorrectly to the shout of “Fore!” would not amount to negligence. There can be little doubt that had he been required to give an opinion on Mr Ure’s contribution, Lord Brailsford’s opinion would have been the same. The main distinction with Phee is that in Ure the club was not convened as a defendant. Unlike in Phee, there was nothing inherently dangerous about the layout of the course: matters came down to the simple case of a golfer hitting a bad shot having given no consideration to other players within range. In Phee, a path between two holes put players at risk of being hit by an errant ball. It was held that appropriate warning signs and rules of priority at the tee and path would in all likelihood have averted the accident. Liability was apportioned 30% to the golfer and 70% to the club at first instance [hyperlink], 20% and 80% on appeal. ...": Peter Demick, 'Scotland - Home of (Dangerous) Golf' (Law Society of Scotland, 15 June 2015) <https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-60-issue-06/scotland-home-of-dangerous-golf/>, archived at <https://archive.md/nuBHm>. -- see also, discussion of golf course design below -- 15 degrees. 

-> See, 'Golfer wins £10,000 damages after being hit by tee shot' (BBC News, 22 May 2015) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-32848431>, archived at <https://archive.is/EncCh>: "... John Ure, 46, was hit by a ball played by Stewart Muir at Bellshill Golf Club, North Lanarkshire, on 9 March 2013. He raised a damages action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh after suffering a head injury, headaches and nausea. Judge Lord Brailsford ruled it was "reasonably foreseeable" that the risk of a bad shot would endanger a player in Mr Ure's position on the fairway. The court heard that Mr Muir, 45, from Blantyre, South Lanarkshire, was playing the ninth hole with two others when his shot struck Mr Ure, who is from Uddingston, also in South Lanarkshire. ... Prior to his tee shot, one of Mr Muir's playing party had already struck a drive which prompted a warning cry of "fore". The judge said this should have alerted him that the group Mr Ure was playing in was in range of an errant drive. "His shot [Mr Muir's] was, on his own admission, a bad one," said the judge. In the action it was said that Mr Ure suffered a head injury and was knocked to the ground. It was said he felt nauseous and was physically ill later that day and went to hospital. It was said that he suffered intermittent severe headaches and nausea and lost enthusiasm for playing the game. Mr Ure's counsel Geoff Clarke QC told the court that damages in the action had been agreed at £10,000 if liability was established.".

-> 'Golfer must pay £10,000 to man hit on head by errant 'slice’' (The Telegraph, 22 May 2015) <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11625639/Golfer-must-pay-10000-to-man-hit-on-head-by-errant-slice.html>, archived at <https://archive.md/fHeOk>. 

-> * 'Golfer hit by errant ball wins £10k damages' (Scottish Legal News, 26 May 2015) <https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/golfer-hit-by-errant-ball-wins-10k-damages>, archived at <https://archive.md/xJc4t>: "... Lord Brailsford ruled in favour of John Ure, 46, after a hearing at the Court of Session. Stewart Muir, a member of Bellshill Golf Club since 2005, was found to be liable for the injury caused when his ball went “out of control”. He was playing on the ninth fairway and struck Ure on the tenth. Another player in Mr Muir’s group had already played an errant shot towards Ure’s group, prompting calls of “fore”, leading the judge to conclude Muir should have realised Ure was playing in range of an errant drive. Mr Muir told the court: “I wouldn’t have thought of any problem arising. I wouldn’t have surmised anything that far right that would create a problem. “It never came into my mind as any sort of risk. If it came into my mind as a risk I would not have played the shot.” Mr Ure suffered a head injury after being struck by the ball, which knocked him to the ground and led to him reporting nausea and physical sickness for the rest of the day, forcing him to go to hospital. His counsel, Geoff Clarke QC, said damages in the action had been agreed at £10,000 if liability was established."

-> 'Do you know who is liable if your golf ball strikes someone?' (AMB Insurance, 30 July 2018) <https://www.ambinsurance.co.uk/2018/07/30/do-you-know-who-is-liable-if-your-golf-ball-strikes-someone/>, archived at <https://archive.md/nShC9>: "... Previous cases of golfing negligence Recent and more historic cases have shown that taking the shot in this situation could lead to serious implications. In 2015, Stewart Muir was ordered to pay £10,000 after an errant slice of the ball hit another golfer on the head, causing intermittent severe headaches and nausea. Muir called the common golfing warning, ‘Fore!’ but the judge found that the shot was negligent. In 2007, a similar scenario occurred, though the golfer that was hit unfortunately lost an eye. The judge found the player that struck the ball was 70% liable, with the clubhouse liable for 30%. The victim was awarded £397,000 in damages. In Australia in the mid-90s, a golfer took a shot, did not call or give a warning, and the ball hit a fellow golfer. It caused life-changing injuries, and the golfer who had taken the shot was found not to have considered the consequences, the shot being ‘plainly negligent’. He was ordered to pay $2.6m in Australian dollars. So, who’s liable? Certainly, there is a grey area where liability is concerned, yet surprisingly, it is often the individual player that must pay substantial damages costs, not the clubhouse. In these cases and in others, defendants have argued that the cautionary signage managed by the clubhouse is not presented clearly enough. However, often its seen as down to the players who are taking risky shots which are ultimately deemed as negligent. What’s more, a report found that 92% of shots taken, fall within a 30 degrees cone; meaning 8% go astray. How can you be sure that the shot you’re about to take won’t land you in trouble? Taking precautions on the golf course is a prerequisite of the game, but considering all risks should be ingrained into every golfer’s mind. ...". -- likely a reference to the PGA of GB Guidelines/Report.

> bad shot - 80-90 yards behind group in front - did not wait till the were out of range: "... Simon Brown LJ ... As to the facts, it is the appellant's simple submission that the judge was wrong to find that this particular shot did give rise to a real risk rather than a mere possibility of injury to the plaintiff. Mr Howard does not, I think, dispute that in assessing the risk the judge was perfectly entitled to have regard to the six factors he enumerated — or rather to the first five of them, the sixth going, as it did, to the question of how easily the defendant could have discharged any duty upon him, namely by a short wait. He complains, however, that the judge failed to pay sufficient heed to certain other considerations, such as how unlikely it was that the ball would both deflect as it did and yet have sufficient impetus left to cause injury to the plaintiff some 80 to 90 yards away, the very factor which made Mr Sterling doubt whether the ball had struck the bush in the first place. Another factor he says was insufficiently in the judge's mind is that very often on a golf course other players will be within theoretical striking range, yet if the course is to be kept moving as it must be, players cannot constantly be waiting until no one is within range. In support of this approach Mr Howard refers us to Brewer v Delo [1967] 1 Lloyd's Law Reports 488 , Hinchcliffe J's decision that where a golfer had hooked his tee shot so that his ball struck another player playing an adjacent hole some 200 yards ahead the action failed on the ground that the consequences were not foreseeable, alternatively the risk was so slight that it could properly be ignored. I would reject these criticisms. In my judgment Brewer v Delo merely illustrates the general principle governing all these cases, namely that each ultimately turns on its own facts. Other golfing cases are referred to in footnote 33 at page 56 of Charlesworth &Percy on Negligence, 9th edition, and one in particular may be contrasted with Brewer v Delo , namely Lewis v Buckpool Golf Club [1993] SLT 43 , where the Sheriff Principal found a high handicap golfer to have been negligent in failing to wait before driving off from the fifth tee with the result that when he mis-hit his shot at an acute angle it injured the plaintiff who was putting on the adjacent fourth green. “The question that arose for decision was whether the mis-hit was something a reasonable man would have had in contemplation as a risk that was reasonably likely to happen. That required more than a mere possibility but not a greater than even likelihood, and if it was reasonably likely to happen it was negligent to neglect it in a situation where it could be avoided without difficulty, disadvantage or expense.” I understand the judge in the instant case to have adopted the self-same approach. I therefore would reject the appellant's argument that the finding of liability against him here was not properly open to the judge on the facts. I do not say that all judges would necessarily have reached the same conclusion. Despite Mr Sterling's opinion on the point, it seems to me a good deal less than self-evident that it was “absolutely reckless” for the defendant to have played this particular shot. It is certainly not every day that an eight iron deflects off a bush and injures a player off line some 80 to 90 yards away. But given the difficulty of the shot, the fact that it could all too easily go wrong and hit the bush ahead, the likelihood of a consequent deflection, and the presence ahead of the plaintiff in the same stretch of rough alongside the ninth fairway, I think the judge was entitled to find the injury sufficiently foreseeable to establish both the duty of care and its breach. And certainly the risk was not so remote that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it (in which regard see Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 ). At the very least here, given that the defendant was using what I may call the plaintiff's section of rough rather than his own, he could and should have called out to the three ball to ask whether he should play on if he was not to wait until they were safely past. That, besides being courteous, would at least have alerted them to the need to watch out. The risk he took, relatively small though it was, was, I conclude, sufficient to render him liable in this action. I would dismiss the appeal. ... Lord Justice Otton: I agree. Foreseeability in any given set of circumstances is ultimately a question of fact (see Lord Bridge in McLoghlin v O&Brian [1983] AC 410 at 432). All the relevant circumstances will need to be taken into account in order to determine whether or not there is a basis for a finding of negligence. On the golf course occasions will arise from time to time where the golfer as an ordinary prudent participant in the game and calling upon his experience in the sport generally will be obliged to address the problem of the safety of others on the course as well as that of the lie of his ball. ... In the present case the judge found that when the defendant took the shot there was a real risk that the plaintiff might be injured, in other words he found as a fact that there was a foreseeable risk of injury. It was a sufficiently foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act to bring the plaintiff within the scope of those to whom the defendant owed a duty of care. He could have waited for the other players to walk past him or he could have attracted their attention, waited for them to give him leave to play the shot and then played. The risk was foreseeable but small and could have been avoided without difficulty or disadvantage. This conclusion was open to the judge on the evidence before him. This might not have been a conclusion which every judge would have reached. However, I see no reason to dissent from his conclusion and I would dismiss the appeal. Sir Christopher Slade: I agree with both judgments that have been delivered. I have some sympathy with the defendant as well as the plaintiff in this case, because it was extremely unfortunate for both of them that the golf ball, having been deflected by the bush, should then have happened to hit the plaintiff in the eye. However, on the judge's findings of fact, in particular his findings in relation to the foreseeability of risk of injury, two conclusions, in my judgment, almost inevitably follow. First, the defendant, in the particular circumstances subsisting at the time when he came to address his ball, owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Secondly, in striking the ball at the time when he did, without shortly waiting for the plaintiff to pass by him and without prior warning to the plaintiff, was in breach of that duty and thereby caused him injury. The outcome of any case concerning golf course injuries must depend on its particular facts. I do not think there are sufficient grounds for our interfering with any of the judge's findings of fact in the present case. For these reasons, very shortly stated, and the further reasons more fully given by my Lords, I would concur in dismissing this appeal.": Marvin John Pearson v Anthony Lightning [1998] WL 1044059; [1998] 4 WLUK 4; (1998) 95(20) LSG 33.

• US Case Law: 

> "... Acts that would give rise to tort liability for negligence on a city street or in a backyard are not negligent in the context of a game where such an act is foreseeable and within the rules. For instance, a golfer who hits practice balls in his backyard and inadvertently hits a neighbor who is gardening or mowing the lawn next door must be held to a different standard than a golfer whose drive hits another golfer on a golf course. A principal difference is the golfer's duty to the one he hit. The neighbor, unlike the other golfer or spectator on the course, has not agreed to participate or watch and cannot be expected to foresee or accept the attendant risk of injury. Conversely, the spectator or participant must accept from a participant conduct associated with that sport. Thus a player who injures another player in the course of a sporting event by conduct that is a foreseeable, customary part of the sport cannot be held liable for negligence because no duty is owed to protect the victim from that conduct. Were we to find such a duty between co-participants in a sport, we might well stifle the rewards of athletic competition. While we believe there can be no actionable negligence between participants in a sport, we do not embrace the notion that a playing field is a freefire zone. We agree with the court in Hanson, supra, at 60, 526 N.E.2d at 329, that "* * * an athlete is not immune from liability for an intentional tort," because "* * * the duty not to commit an intentional tort against another remains intact, even in the heat of battle * * *." (Emphasis sic.) Our conclusion that between participants in a sport intentional or reckless misconduct gives rise to liability, as our conclusion that negligent misconduct does not, must be understood in the context of the rules of the sport. See Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699. If, for example, a golfer knows another is within the line of flight of his shot and fails to offer the customary warning of "fore," liability might accrue. Such conduct could amount to reckless indifference to the rights of others.": Thompson et al v McNeill, 53 Ohio St. 3d 102 (1990), 104 (Wright J) <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=8839331435306632336>. 

> "... Another Court of Appeals case, decided only weeks before Higgins, took a different tack. In Schmidt v. Youngs, 215 Mich.App. 222, 544 N.W.2d 743 (1996), the plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a golf ball. Contrary to the custom of staying 521*521 behind the ball of the person who is about to hit, the plaintiff had positioned himself some thirty yards in front and to the right of the point where defendant was to play his ball. The defendant shanked the ball and hit the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for the defendant, quoting Am. Jur. 2d: "A person who engages in the game of golf is not an insurer of the safety of others, and he is only required to exercise ordinary care for the safety of persons reasonably within the range of danger. "Generally, one who is about to strike a golf ball must, in the exercise of ordinary care, give an adequate and timely notice to those who are unaware of his intention to play and who may be endangered by the play. Conversely, there is no duty to give advance warning to persons who are on contiguous holes or fairways, and not in the line of play, if danger to them is not reasonably to be anticipated. Also, where the person injured was in a place where he should have been reasonably safe, and he was aware of the player's intention to play the ball, an oral or audible warning would have been superfluous and is therefore unnecessary." [4 Am.Jur.2d, Amusements and Exhibitions, § 87, pp. 211-212 (1995 interim pamphlet).] [215 Mich.App. at 225, 544 N.W.2d 743.] Although it affirmed summary disposition for the defendant, the Court in Schmidt applied an ordinary care standard. In doing so, the Court posited that, while one may consent to the inherent risks of being a spectator or participant in a sport, "one does not ordinarily consent to another's negligence." Id. at 228, 544 N.W.2d 743. On the basis of a review of the published cases in Michigan, there seems to be general agreement that participants in recreational activities are not liable for every mishap that results in injury, and that certain risks inhere in all such activities. Our older opinions generally applied an ordinary care standard. However, the more recent cases from the Court of Appeals appear to be divided regarding the level of duty, or the standard of care, owed to coparticipants. ... In Hathaway, supra, the Texas Court of Appeals faced a similar issue regarding the difference between contact sports and other activities when it addressed golfers' duties to each other. Before Hathaway, Texas had recognized a "reckless or intentional" standard of care for "competitive contact sports." Connell v. Payne, 814 S.W.2d 486, 489 (Tex.App., 1991). The Hathaway court extended this standard to golf, explaining: While the genteel game of golf can hardly be described as a "competitive contact sport," we believe the reckless and intentional standard is every bit as appropriate to conduct on the links as it is to conduct on the polo field. * * * Acts that would be negligent if performed on a city street or in a backyard are not negligent in the context of a game where a risk of inadvertent harm is built into the sport. As those persons who play golf well know, "shanking the ball is a foreseeable and not uncommon occurrence." "The same is true of hooking, slicing, pushing, or pulling a golf shot." Because of the great likelihood of these unintended and offline shots, it can indeed be said that the risk of being inadvertently hit by a ball struck by another competitor is built into the game of golf.... Many bad shots carry the ball to the right or the left of an intended line of play. Golfers playing to the right or left of 525*525 that line will of course be endangered by such shots. "This risk all golf players must accept." [Id. at 616-617 (citations omitted).]": Ritchie-Gamester v City of Berkley, 597 NW 2d 517 (1999), 521, 524-5 <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=14334471748240878867>. 

> "... The summary judgment evidence showed that Barfield did not see Hathaway before hitting his ball. Hathaway had just rounded a bend in the cart path and emerged from behind a line of trees when Barfield struck his fateful shot. Barfield had been hitting balls from the left side of the driving range because he generally sliced the ball to the right. Barfield apparently hit the ball in question off the heel of his club, causing it to hook uncharacteristically to the left. Both Hathaway and Barfield were members of Tascosa Country Club and were familiar with the layout of the course. Both men knew that balls hit from the driving range often carried out of the driving range area, across the cart path on hole number nine and into that hole's fairway. Both men had often seen range balls lying in the ninth fairway. Hathaway had even discussed the danger of the driving range being adjacent to the ninth and eighteenth holes with a friend some time prior to the accident. Hathaway was aware of the possibility of being struck by a golf ball driven off the practice tee while playing the ninth hole. He acknowledged that it would have been a good idea to be on the lookout for errant practice drives while playing the ninth hole but that he could not say for sure whether he was keeping such a lookout on the day of the accident. 616*616 Hathway alleged negligence on the part of both Barfield and Tascosa and sought to hold them liable for his injuries and his medical expenses. Barfield filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that he was not negligent. Tascosa filed a motion for summary judgment in which it claimed that summary judgment should be granted in its favor as a matter of law. The trial court granted both motion. ... In Thompson, the issue before the Ohio Supreme Court was the degree of care owed between participants in the sport of golf. The court held that in sports such as golf, "only injuries caused by intentional conduct, or in some instances reckless misconduct, may give rise to a cause of action." Id. at 706. "There is no liability for injuries caused by negligent conduct." Id. "A player who injures another player in the course of a sporting event by conduct that is a foreseeable, customary part of the sport cannot be held liable for negligence because no duty is owed to protect the victim from that conduct." Id. at 707. Acts that would be negligent if performed on a city street or in a backyard are not negligent in the context of a game where a risk of inadvertent harm is built into the sport. As those persons who play golf well know, "shanking the ball is a foreseeable and not uncommon occurrence." Id. at 709. "The same is true of hooking, slicing, pushing, or pulling a golf shot." Id. Because of the great likelihood of these unintended and offline shots, it can indeed be said that the risk of being inadvertently hit by a ball struck by another competitor is built into the game of golf. Despite the marvelous advances in golf equipment over the course of the past half-century, the following words, penned during the days when golf club shafts were made of hickory sticks, still ring true: It is well known that not every shot played by a golfer goes to the point where he intends it to go. If such were the case, every player would be perfect 617*617 and the whole pleasure of the sport would be lost. It is common knowledge, at least among players, that many bad shots must result although every stroke is delivered with the best possible intention and without any negligence whatever. Benjamin v. Nernberg, 102 Pa.Super. 471, 157 A. 10, 11 (1931). Many bad shots carry the ball to the right or the left of an intended line of play. Id. Golfers playing to the right or left of that line will of course be endangered by such shots. Id. "This risk all golf players must accept." Id. We hold that for a plaintiff to prevail in a cause of action against a fellow golfer, the defendant must have acted recklessly or intentionally. The summary judgment record offers no evidence that Barfield recklessly or intentionally drove his golf ball out of the range area and onto the ninth fairway so as to endanger other golfers. Points of error one, two and three are overruled as to Barfield and the trial court's order of summary judgment in favor of Barfield is affirmed.": Hathaway v. Tascosa Country Club, Inc., 846 SW 2d 614 (1993) 615-7, <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=9285453458239174273>. 

> "... Plaintiffs' cause of action based on the claimed negligence of the defendant golfer is similarly untenable. Although the object of the game of golf is to drive the ball as cleanly and directly as possible toward its ultimate intended goal (the hole), the possibility that the ball will fly off in another direction is a risk inherent in the game. Contrary to the view of the dissenters below, the presence of such a risk does not, by itself, import tort liability (see, 167 AD2d 942, 944 [Callahan, J. P., and Balio, J., dissenting]). The essence of tort liability is the failure to take reasonable steps, where possible, to minimize the chance of harm. Thus, to establish liability in tort, there must be both the existence of a recognizable risk and some basis for concluding that the harm flowing from the consummation of that risk was reasonably preventable. Since "`even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional "hook" or "slice"'" (Jenks v McGranaghan, supra, at 479, quoting Nussbaum v Lacopo, supra, at 319), it cannot be said that the risk of a mishit golf ball is a fully preventable occurrence. To the contrary, even with the utmost concentration and the "tedious preparation" that often accompanies a golfer's shot (see, Nussbaum v Lacopo, supra, at 319), there is no guarantee that the ball will be lofted onto the correct path. For that reason, we have held that the mere fact that a golf ball did not travel in the intended direction does not establish a viable negligence claim (Jenks v McGranaghan, supra, at 479). To provide an actionable theory of liability, a person injured by a mishit golf ball must affirmatively show that the golfer failed to exercise due care by adducing proof, for example, that the golfer "aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm" (Nussbaum v Lacopo, supra, at 319). No such proof was adduced here. In response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs submitted nothing more than the affidavit of a golf pro explaining that "slicing" is a common problem among inexperienced and experienced golfers alike and a deposition statement by defendant Vogel to the effect that his codefendant, McGovern, had such a problem. At most, this evidence, if ultimately proven to be true, would establish only what is obvious — that if one or 734*734 both defendants teed off from the eleventh hole, there was a risk that one or both of their golf balls would travel off to the right in the direction of the road rather than the direction of the fairway. Plaintiffs' evidence did not, however, support the other element of the cause of action essential to plaintiffs' recovery, i.e., that defendant's actions with respect to this risk were negligent. Hence, plaintiffs' cause of action based on defendant's purported lack of due care was properly dismissed.": Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 NY 2d 729 (1991), 733-4 (Titone J). 

> "... For example, in the Trauman case (208 Misc. 252, supra), plaintiff was struck by a tee shot from the first tee while standing in the ninth fairway. Plaintiff was about 100 feet from the tee, only about 20 to 25 feet from the intended line of flight (208 Misc., at pp. 254-255). Plaintiff did not see defendant tee off. The court held that defendant was under no duty to yell "fore" to warn plaintiff that he might be endangered by a bad shot (id., at p. 256). Similarly, in the Rose case (97 Ga. App. 764, supra), plaintiff was struck while standing in a fairway 125 yards from the tee of another hole. Plaintiff was only 17 degrees off the line of the intended flight of the ball. The Georgia court held as a matter of law that there was no negligence in failing to give advance warning. (97 Ga. App., at p. 768.) 480*480The case Johnston v. Blanchard (276 App. Div. 839, affd. 301 N.Y. 599), which upheld a jury verdict in favor of an injured golfer, is not inconsistent with the principles stated above. In that case plaintiff was struck by a ball hit by his playing partner while both golfers were standing in the same rough about 70 yards apart (id.). In this case when defendant McGranaghan teed off plaintiff Jenks was on another tee 150 yards away, about 25 yards away from the intended line of flight. Thus, Mr. Jenks was about 4½ times farther away and about 3 times farther off line than the plaintiff in Trauman (208 Misc. 252, supra). Although there is no fixed rule regarding the distance and angle which are considered within the ambit of foreseeable danger, if the distance and angle are great enough they are not within the danger zone as defined by previous cases. Moreover, at the time defendant McGranaghan was preparing to drive, plaintiff Jenks was still behind the protective fence. A golfer cannot be expected to break his concentration while addressing the ball the instant before he hits to look up and see if someone has just stepped into the danger zone, if indeed it had been the danger zone. Under the circumstances, there was no duty to yell "fore" before hitting. Plaintiff contends that defendant was negligent in teeing off with plaintiff's partner in an exposed area outside the fence at the ninth tee, and with other golfers on the eighth green. The facts underlying these contentions are in dispute, but they must be assumed against defendant. Plaintiff's partner was even farther off line than plaintiff, and, thus, under the analysis above defendant owed no duty to warn him before driving. The golfers on the eighth green, if there were any, could not be seen from the eighth tee. In any event, the only relevant question is whether defendant breached a duty to plaintiff, and any breach of duty to others not injured is immaterial (Prosser, Torts [4th ed.], pp. 324-325).": Jenks v. McGranaghan, 30 NY 2d 475 (1972), 479-80 (Breitel J) <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=8679871922110956031>.  

> Professional player struck in eye, assumption of risk, proceeded to play despite knowledge of lack of protective barriers: Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc., 225 AD 3d 1030 (2024) <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=17518028138946081034>. 

> breach not made out, struck by golf ball from another fairway while waiting to tee off: "{¶14} During his deposition, Mr. Mauger testified that he routinely golfed, belonged to a league, and was playing with three other league members when his tee shot struck Mr. Esposito. Before Mr. Mauger hit his ball, he did not notice Mr. Esposito's golf cart because it was parked about 170-175 yards away in the rough that adjoined their two fairways. He first noticed the cart when he hit his ball and began following its flight path. According to Mr. Mauger, it was windy that day, and the wind caught his ball and pushed it right. When he realized that his ball was heading toward Mr. Esposito's cart, Mr. Mauger testified, he and at least one other member of his foursome yelled fore. He indicated that there was no visible reaction on Mr. Esposito's part and, initially, he did not realize that his ball had struck Mr. Esposito. When the rest of his foursome finished hitting their tee shots, he looked over and saw Mr. Esposito on the ground. {¶15} Mr. Mauger testified that he and his cart partner drove over to Mr. Esposito and Mr. Esposito's father. According to Mr. Mauger, he asked the father whether he had heard them yell fore. It was Mr. Mauger's testimony that the father said they had not heard anything because they were playing music too loudly. {¶16} The three other members of Mr. Mauger's foursome also testified by way of deposition. Richard Blough, a recreational golfer with 55 years of experience, testified that at least two members of their foursome yelled fore when Mr. Mauger's ball began traveling toward Mr. Esposito's cart. Although the cart was parked within striking range, Mr. Blough opined that the rules of golf did not require Mr. Mauger to wait for Mr. Esposito to move before he hit his tee shot. That is because Mr. Esposito was not parked in their fairway. Mr. Blough explained that having another golfer in range off the fairway and having another golfer in range ahead on the fairway are "entirely two different things." According to Mr. Blough, custom would dictate only that the golfer who has another player positioned ahead, withing striking range, on the golfer's own fairway wait to hit his ball. {¶17} Byron Lautenschleger, a recreational golfer who played on social leagues for years, also testified that someone in their foursome yelled fore after Mr. Mauger hit his ball. Much like Mr. Mauger, Mr. Lautenschleger testified that he did not notice Mr. Esposito's cart until after Mr. Mauger struck his ball. He also confirmed that the cart was parked about 175 yards away from their tee box and was not parked in their fairway. {¶18} The final member of Mr. Mauger's foursome, Richard Mazon, testified that he was an avid golfer with 55 years of experience. He testified that it was windy the day that they played and, when Mr. Mauger hit his tee shot, his ball faded to the right. Mr. Mazon estimated that there was about 30 yards of rough connecting their fairway with Mr. Esposito's fairway and that Mr. Esposito's cart was parked near the mid-point of the two roughs. He stated that, when Mr. Mauger's ball faded right, multiple members of their foursome yelled fore. Before that point, Mr. Mazon had not noticed Mr. Esposito's cart. He testified that the general rule in golf is that a player not hit when another player is ahead on the same fairway and within striking range. Much like Mr. Blough, he opined that the general rule does not apply when the other player is in a different fairway. {¶19} Upon review, we must conclude that Mr. Mauger satisfied his initial Dresher burden by setting forth evidence that he did not act recklessly when he hit his tee shot. See Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 293. There was no evidence that Mr. Esposito was parked in Mr. Mauger's fairway such that the customary rules of golf would have required Mr. Mauger to refrain from hitting. Moreover, all four members of Mr. Mauger's foursome testified that one or more individuals in their group yelled fore when they realized that Mr. Mauger's tee shot was heading toward Mr. Esposito's cart. Mr. Mauger set forth evidence that he did not consciously disregard a known or obvious risk of harm to Mr. Esposito. See Anderson, 134 Ohio St.3d 380, 2012-Ohio-5711, at ¶ 34. Accordingly, he satisfied his initial burden, and the burden shifted to Mr. Esposito to set forth evidence of a genuine issue of material fact on that issue. See Dresher at 293. {¶20} Mr. Esposito and his father both testified by way of deposition. The father testified that he was an experienced golfer who played several times a week. On the day in question, he and his son parked their golf cart in the rough on the right side of their fairway because that was where his son had hit his tee shot. The father denied that they were playing music but agreed that they were waiting for other players on their fairway to hit. Though Mr. Mauger's tee box was in the father's line of sight, he testified that he paid no attention to Mr. Mauger or his foursome. Indeed, he testified that it "was none of [his] business" what Mr. Mauger's foursome was doing because they were playing an entirely different fairway and "[y]ou can't watch everybody on the whole golf course * * *." The father stated that he never heard anyone yell fore. Even so, he could not say whether that was because no one yelled fore or because he simply did not hear it. {¶21} Mr. Esposito testified that golf was a passion, that he was PGA certified, and that he had played Chippewa Golf Course more than 40 times before his injury occurred. On the day in question, Mr. Esposito's tee shot landed in the rough on the right side of his fairway, so he and his father parked their golf cart in that spot. Mr. Esposito testified that he saw Mr. Mauger's foursome on the tee box of the adjacent fairway but assumed they would wait for him to move because he was "very visible" from their tee box. Even so, he admitted that he was not aware of any specific rule regarding whether a player at the tee box or a player in the rough should hit first. He indicated that it was "really up to the people that are involved in it" to decide who hits first. {¶22} Mr. Esposito denied that he and his father were playing music in their golf cart when he was struck with Mr. Mauger's ball. It was his testimony that he never heard anyone yell fore and was not aware of any attempts on the part of Mr. Mauger or his foursome to warn him. Yet, he also made the following concessions: Q. If you didn't have music playing, then why didn't you hear the fores that were yelled at you before this incident? A. The wind was pretty aggressive that day. Q. So the wind is the reason why you didn't hear? A. I guess, yes. Q. Do you have any other explanation for why you didn't hear other than the wind? A. I do not. Thus, Mr. Esposito conceded that windy course conditions affected his ability to hear the warning that Mr. Mauger and his foursome issued. {¶23} Upon review, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of Mr. Mauger on Mr. Esposito's claim of reckless conduct. Mr. Esposito attempted to prove that it was reckless for Mr. Mauger to hit his tee shot because he should have known that Mr. Esposito was within striking range. Yet, Mr. Esposito was not playing on Mr. Mauger's fairway. Mr. Mauger presented evidence of a customary rule of golf, which is that a player should delay hitting only if another player is ahead and within range on his own fairway. See Maxwell v. Rowe, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 97CA0075, 1998 WL 663228, *2 (Sept. 23, 1998). Mr. Esposito failed to present any evidence of a contrary, customary rule. Likewise, he failed to present any evidence to rebut the testimony that Mr. Mauger and at least one other member of his foursome yelled fore when they saw his ball heading toward Mr. Esposito. Mr. Esposito and his father only stated that they did not hear the warning, and Mr. Esposito conceded that windy course conditions affected his ability to hear Mr. Mauger. While we are not without sympathy for the injury Mr. Esposito incurred, errant shots are "a foreseeable and not uncommon occurrence in the game of golf." Thompson, 53 Ohio St.3d at 106. Mr. Esposito failed to present evidence that Mr. Mauger consciously disregarded a known or obvious risk of harm to him that was unreasonable under the circumstances and was substantially greater than negligent conduct. See Anderson, 134 Ohio St.3d 380, 2012-Ohio-5711, at ¶ 34. As such, the trial court did not err by awarding Mr. Mauger summary judgment on Mr. Esposito's complaint. Mr. Esposito's sole assignment of error is overruled.": Esposito v. MAUGER, 2021 Ohio 2808 (2021) <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=14949136683327196658>. 

• SG: dangerous play - no player should play until the players in front are out of range: Chin Hong Oon Ronny v Tanah Merah Country Club [2001] SGHC 99 <https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2001_SGHC_99>. 

[C] Nuisance

• Nuisance (tort): John Rolfe, 'Your legal rights when a golf ball damages your property' (Daily Telegrapgh, 5 June 2013) <https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/your-legal-rights-when-a-golf-ball-damages-your-property/news-story/7113345e8ec73b8c9385062eab15a3dc>. 

• Nuisance - Golf Club: The occupier adopts the nuisance or passively lets it continue, moving to the nuisance is no defence: Challen v The Mcleod. Country Golf Club [2004] QCA 358; See also, Campbelltown Golf Club v Winton (unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 23 June 1998, Sheller, Powell JJA and Sheppard AJA).

• CCH Commentary, 'Cricket and golf balls — nuisance', ¶33-260: "... Cricket and golf balls (and, presumably, other balls used in sport) that are hit onto a neighbour’s property may constitute a nuisance: Miller v Jackson (1977) QB 966. In Miller v Jackson, a cricket club was held liable in private nuisance and negligence for the emanation of cricket balls from a sporting ground onto a neighbouring property. Cricket balls landing in the neighbouring property were a regular occurrence. Similarly, in Lester-Travers v City of Frankston (1970) VR 2, the emanation of golf balls onto an adjoining suburban property was held to constitute a private nuisance. In that case, at least 36 golf balls were found on the plaintiff’s property over a 12-month period and actual (albeit slight) property damage had occurred. See also Challen v The McLeod Country Golf Club (2004) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-760; [2004] QCA 358. In contrast, an earlier claim in public nuisance in Bolton v Stone (1951) AC 850 failed. In that case, a woman was injured when a cricket ball was hit out of the park injuring a woman on public road. Balls had been hit on to the highway only some 6–10 times in previous 35 years and no one had been injured. Before the House of Lords, it was accepted that no case of nuisance could succeed unless the plaintiff could also establish negligence because the batsman was not an individual to whom strict liability applied (at 856). Lords Porter, Reid and Radcliffe expressly declined to consider the nuisance claim given their conclusions as to negligence. The Court of Appeal below, considering the nuisance claim, had found that a single isolated interference causing direct damage could not constitute a public nuisance (at 205 per Singleton LJ, at 208 per Jenkins LJ). ... Regular intrusions by golf balls were found to constitute a nuisance in Campbelltown Golf Club v Winton (unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 23 June 1998, Sheller, Powell JJA and Sheppard AJA). No injunction was given in that case (it is unclear whether an injunction was sought) but damages were awarded by the district court at first instance. On appeal, it was argued that in assessing damages the trial judge had erred in failing to take into account the fact that the respondents were aware that the golf course existed in close proximity when they built their house. This was treated, in effect, as a “coming to the nuisance” argument which the court recognised has “long been ‘excluded’”, referencing Chitty J in Attorney-General v Corporation of Manchester [1893] 2 Ch 87."

• "... There have been a number of cases where the playing of golf with many golf balls trespassing onto adjoining property has been held a nuisance.  See Castle v St Augustine’s Links 1922 38 TLR 615, Lester-Travers v City of Frankston [1970] VR 2, Pringle v Ryde-Parramatta Golf Club, unreported decision of Helsham CJ, delivered 23 February 1978 and more recently the unreported New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Campbelltown Golf Club Limited v Winton delivered on 23 June 1998.  It is well established that it is no defence to an action for nuisance that the plaintiff willingly came to occupy a property knowing that there was a nuisance or a potential for a nuisance.  "The doctrine of coming to a nuisance may be looked on as exploded.  A man is not precluded from maintaining an action or a suit by the fact that the business which creates the nuisance had been carried on before he took possession." – see Kerr on Injunctions, 2nd ed. at p.208.  See also the Law of Torts by Dr Fleming, 9th ed. at p.491.": Champagne View Pty Ltd v Shearwater Resort Management Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] VSC 214, [71]-[73] (Gillard J). 

• Chris Davies, 'When the Game of Golf Becomes a Nuisance' (2021) 17(1) Malaysian Journal of Sport Science and Recreation 1 <https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/48282/1/48282.pdf>. -- see cases cited therein.

• cf Hemmings v Stoke Poges Golf Club [1920] 1 KB 720.

• William Whitefield v Colin Barton, Clydesdale District Council [1987] SCLR 259; [1986] 10 WLUK 91: Held, where a motorist using a public road bordering on a golf course suffered loss when his car was struck by a golf ball, that the golfer who struck the shot was not at fault but that the proprietors of the golf course, who were aware of the risk of badly hit tee shots striking persons using the road, were at fault. 

• Jeffrey Wilks, 'Private Nuisance from Errant Golf Balls' (1999) 16(2) EPLJ 149, archived at <https://perma.cc/5ZFT-LHXR>. -- see case law cited within. 

• Nuisance, trespass, negligence - irritation and physical damage suffered by living near fields where cricket and golf are played: Bolton v Stone (1951), Miller v Jackson (1977), Lester-Travers v City of Frankston (1970). See also, Julia Davis, Marco Rizzi and Kate Offer, Connecting with Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2020) 292. 

> See also, "... If, then, even a most worthwhile enterprise of economic advantage to the community, is capable of giving rise to an action in nuisance, it is not surprising that, if the defendant’s activities are directed primarily to recreational pursuits, a finding of nuisance may the more readily be arrived at. As Anderson J remarked in Lester-Travers v City of Frankston,82 in relation to the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff by golf balls being hit from the defendant’s links, ‘it would be contrary to one’s sense of justice, as well as inconsistent with the law, that the plaintiff’s rights should be subordinated to the leisurely pursuits of sportsmen’.": R P Balkin and J L R Davis, Law of Torts (LexisNexis, 5th ed, 2013) 474-5 referring to Lester-Travers v City of Frankston [1970] VR 2, 10. 

• Allegation against City Council: Australian Golf Management Corporation Pty Limited v Logan City Council [2022] QCA 86.

• A J Van Der Walt, 'Sport and Nuisance Law', South African Law Journal <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/188221891.pdf>.

• Water runoff from club: Museth v Windsor Country Golf Club Ltd [2016] NSWCA 327.

• Planning - coastal reserve - errant golf balls - environmental: "95. In considering the acceptability of the proposal, we are not comforted by the Applicant’s submissions that the golf course designer seeks to minimise earthworks.  We consider that greater documentation and certainty is required when a golf course is proposed so close to the cliff edge.  The contours on the plan and our site visits confirm the likelihood of fairly substantial works to create bunkers and format tees/greens even though the design seeks to make use of the landform and topography as it exists today.  Holes 3, 4, 17 and 18 are examples where the tees, fairways, roughs and bunkers are associated with areas of considerable slope.  It is within this context that we find the extent of cut for the golf holes is likely to create an unacceptable level of disturbance to the coastline and coastal edge. 96. Mr Canavan said concerns about errant golf balls were overstated, as were the impacts of wind conditions, with the design addressing both matters by wider fairways and the intent to prevent golfers from collecting any balls from the fenced-off coastal reserve. 97. We are not persuaded to accept these submissions. Rather, we have concerns about the interface between the golf course and the coastal reserve in terms of risks of damage and degradation to native vegetation within the abutting reserve. Risks might arise from the maintenance regime associated with the golf course (such as the use of fertilisers and chemicals), activities of golfers, or activities of members of the public who might seek to spend some time fossicking for errant golf balls. The potential for greater intrusion by people into the coastal reserve brings risks of damage to the habitat of native fauna, especially to the nests and eggs of birds. There is also a direct risk of injury to wildlife from golf balls hit across ravines and balls travelling over the cliff edges. 98. The risks might seem small or trifling to some, but threats to the coastline and its ecology are expressly sought to be minimised by the Overlay control.  We consider greater respect is required to be shown to the interface between an active recreation pursuit and a recognised sensitive and significant ecological environment.  We note the Applicant’s reliance on a suitable management regime to prevent golfers accessing fenced vegetated areas and other proposed actions.  However, retention of the few remaining areas of native vegetation and greater setbacks from the reserve are both required in order to minimise earthworks to the natural coastal landforms, minimise risks to the sensitive coastal environment, and to meet the overall purpose of the Environmental Significance Overlay, which is “To ensure that development is compatible with identified environmental values.”.: Linfox Property Group Inc v Bass Coast SC [2008] VCAT 642. 

• US - Planning: "After filing a lawsuit, a developer is asking the Overland Park Planning Commission to reconsider a proposal to build a house next to the Deer Creek subdivision's golf course at 131st and Walmer streets. The commission is scheduled to review the request 1:30 p.m. Monday at City Hall, 8500 Santa Fe Drive. The commission denied the proposal in April, citing safety concerns andan unwillingness to change the master plan. It is the second request by developer, Cal-Neva Development Co., to build on vacant land adjacent to the course that the commission has denied. The lawsuit was filed against Overland Park because the developer thinks the denial was arbitrary, said Joy Hays, an attorney representing Cal-Neva. ``Our position is that its not a legal basis to deny it,'' Hays said. The commission is taking another look at the proposal because new information was introduced at the public hearing that the developer was not prepared to rebut, said Bart Budetti, senior assistant city attorney. When the project was originally considered, opponents of the proposal submitted a letter to the commission from Robert Trent Jones II, the firm that designed the golf course, saying the lot should not be developed into a home because of safety concerns. ``...the proposed lot is totally unsafe and defies virtually every sound golf course design principle we follow regarding proper setback requirements from the playable golfing areas,'' the designer's letter said. After the commission denied the project, the designer said the safety issue could be remedied with a 12-foot high screen at the rear of the lot, Hays said. If the commission approves the new plan with the screen, the developer must ask for a variance from the city's Board of Zoning Appeals because screens are not allowed to be taller than eight feet. If the board does not grant the variance, the commission's approval is nullified. When the property around the proposed lot was developed in the early '90s, a couple of half-acre parcels were left as undeveloped green space. Nancy Czinege is one of many Deer Creek residents who are against building homes on the empty lots. Aside from safety issues, there is concern the proposed home would not be held to the same standards as the rest of the subdivision because it would not be controlled by the homes association.": Valerie Stahl, 'Home on Golf Course to be Reconsidered' (Kansas City Star, 6 September 1997) 13.

• Planning - UK - wind turbines - golf club: "... 41.  In terms of the effect on the golf course, I saw that the wind turbine would be a dominant presence directly in the line of the tee shot on the 11th hole. It would sit oppressively close to the 11th green, and the 12th tee, and the walk between them. There is no good evidence that this would lead to a drop in membership, or fewer visiting golfers, with consequent effects on income and the viability of the business. It is clear too that wind turbines in close proximity to golf courses are nothing new—the Royal Aberdeen situation was explored at the inquiry. Nevertheless, the close proximity of the wind turbine to areas of the course, its distracting effect, and incongruous presence in views out from the course, would devalue the sporting and recreational experience it offers. 42.  Taking these points together, the proposal would have a harmful impact on sport and recreation and this must be weighed in the overall planning balance. ...": Kear v Forest of Dean DC [2014] P.A.D 16 (Westlaw). 

• Planning - nuisance issues - stormwater runoff - flooding: Royal Hobart Golf Club Inc. v Clarence City Council (No 2) [2024] TASCAT 24; Felix v Knox City Council [2006] VCAT 211. 

• Planning - comments on fences' height - alteration to fence height: "9. What is important here is that the fundamental nature of the proposal has in no way changed. Alterations to the height of the fence are not only intended to help adjoining land-owners in regard to errant golf balls, but, in my opinion, are relatively minor. Such fences are a common component of proposals of this kind and a difference in fence height of the order relevant here+ would be hardly discernible to someone not armed with surveying apparatus. 10.  The internal re-arrangements would, in my view of the matter, be highly unlikely to interest any person not already opposed to the development and would have little if any impact on the areas amenity.  Residents to the east and south (and they would be affected if anyone was) have made it clear in material before me that they have experienced no concern in respect of these matters.": The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland Limited v. Brisbane City Council & Anor [2002] QPEC 005.

• * Planning - errant golf balls - development application of Ashlar Golf Club refused: "This is an appeal by the Ashlar Golf Club Limited in relation to the refusal by Blacktown City Council of an application to erect a safety screen adjacent to, and out from, the tee of the fourteenth hole on the golf course. The fourteenth hole is presently a par four dog leg left hole. It is not of excessive length, but is made challenging by the fact that it is a dog leg, the corner of which is substantially planted with trees, and the fairway designed with a bunker on the top of the corner, or close to the top of the corner, away from the tee.  For the average golfer the hole would play as a genuine two shot par four.  However, for the ambitious, strong and talented golfer there is a challenge to cut the dog leg, carry the trees, avoid the bunker, and be left with a wedge or short iron to the green.  The right handed golfer, who are the majority of golfers, who takes on the challenge runs the risk of drawing the tee shot, which will carry it either into the trees, into an adjacent drainage canal, or, as has undoubtedly occurred in many cases, carrying the ball into neighbouring properties.  Others, with less talent, may play an errant shot on the tee which out of the heel of the club or in some other way as a mishit, will take a more direct path into a neighbour’s property. The evidence before me persuades me that the regularity with which golf balls have entered neighbouring properties confirms that there is a real safety and amenity issue. The golf course has existed for many years, and I assume the current configuration of the fourteenth has been maintained over a lengthy period of time. The neighbouring properties are, I understand, developed on land which originally formed part of the golf course, which was sold some years ago now. The problem for those houses is created by the proximity of the lots to the fourteenth fairway and tee and also the configuration of the hole as a dog leg. Some years ago, the problem was partially addressed by the erection of a tall galvanised fence adjacent and out from the fourteenth tee. It is apparent from marks on that fence that it has been partially successful in restraining errant golf balls, but it is plain from the evidence before me that it has not been wholly successful. In more recent times, the club has limited play from the fourteenth tee to the front portion of the tee and this appears to have had a significant beneficial effect.  The neighbours report that the number of balls entering their properties has significantly diminished when the hole has been modified in this way.  That modification has the effect of altering the angle of the tee shot to some extent and confining the ambition of some to cut the dog leg to the extent that they attempted from the rear of the tee.  However, the efforts that have been made have not been entirely successful and the club has maintained a wish to continue the fourteenth hole in its original configuration. There is evidence before me of work done by golf course consultants, suggesting a redesign of the hole in various ways which could alleviate the safety and amenity issues.  The club itself has taken steps in relation to the matter and undertook the construction of a very significant barrier extending out from the existing metal fence.  The construction extended to the point where three large telegraph type poles have been installed in the ground.  However, consent had not been obtained from the council and as I understand the position, following submissions from a number of local people, the council intervened and the club stopped short of erecting the completed fence. The present application seeks to complete the structure which has been partly erected.  It provides for a fence supported on poles which will extend fifteen metres above the ground and for a length of forty metres. I had a view of the golf course with the parties and also examined the situation from the surrounding streets. Generally the neighbours of the golf club with properties adjoining the club from Meig Place expressed concern about the proposed fence.  They believe it will be an unacceptable vision intrusion into the amenity of their domestic dwellings, providing an uncharacteristic and substantial structure on the skyline and middle ground, which is presently unobstructed or contains a view of trees.  Some of those neighbours will view the lower portions and more direct portions of the golf course through the existing metal fence. Many of those properties use their back yards or rear yards for outdoor living purposes and as they all front on to the bulb of a cul-de-sac, it can be readily appreciated that their rear yards provide the major outdoor amenity for the properties.  A number of them have swimming pools. I have listened carefully to the argument put by the club and the evidence of those who support the erection of the proposed fence. The position is that although a substantial structure the fence will not be an unreasonable visual intrusion for the neighbouring properties. I have also been directed to other locations where similar fencing has been erected, photographs of which have been tendered. I indicate, as the parties appreciate, that I am familiar with many protective fencing devices that have been installed on golf courses in the Sydney region. The immediately adjoining properties, are, as I have indicated, domestic dwellings, erected on parcels of land, which although modest provide a considerable level of amenity to the occupants.  The view from their yard areas is presently a pleasant view across the golf course, significantly of trees and of the open sky.  For a number of the properties the proposed fence will represent a significant visual intrusion.  The poles themselves which are already in place extending as they do fifteen metres into the air, provide a visual form entirely out of character with any other built form in the area. There are, in the streets, as one would expect in this area, wooden power poles, but these are of a height consistent with the existing tree canopy.  The proposed fence will extend well beyond the visual envelope formed by that existing tree canopy. I accept the complaint of the various persons who have indicated that from their own yard areas the proposed structure would be unacceptable.  However, I also accept the real concerns of the neighbours who have received golf balls into their rear yards. The Land and Environment Court does not have the jurisdiction of the Equity Division of the Supreme Court and there is no case in nuisance which could be prosecuted in this Court.  Nevertheless, in considering the acceptability of the proposed fence it is relevant for me to carefully consider the benefits which it will bring to the neighbours.  I am satisfied that for some neighbours, those benefits would be real and although it could not be concluded that, even with the fence in place, all golf balls would be excluded from neighbouring properties, a real benefit would follow. Notwithstanding the intrusive visual impact of the proposal, if I was persuaded that there was no other reasonable alternative, the conclusion I have reached about this proposal may have been different.  However, both in discussions on site and in material tendered before me, it is apparent that it is within the golf club’s power to make changes to the fourteenth hole, which would substantially ameliorate the impact of golf balls upon neighbouring properties and which would not require the erection of the very substantial fence which is now proposed. Without discussing the options in detail, it is plain that the most extreme option would be the reduction of the hole from a par four to a par three hole which would virtually eliminate any potential problem for any of the neighbours and would not require the construction of the proposed fence.  If the hole was not reduced to a par three it could be reconfigured in various ways which would not require the erection of the proposed fence to minimise the impact upon the adjoining neighbours. Weighing all these matters, I have come to the conclusion that the application must be refused.  This will have the consequence that the problems for the neighbours who are presently receiving golf balls will continue. It will be a matter for the club to identify how it should respond to that difficulty.  However, in my opinion the size of the proposed structure and its serious deleterious impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties has the consequence that it should not be approved. Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the development application of the Ashlar Golf Club is refused. The exhibits may be returned.": Ashlar Golf Club Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2004]  NSWLEC 753.

• Planning - nuisance - errant balls: "46. In these circumstances, factors that we consider relevant are the primary outlook of the neighbouring dwellings, the large gardens and distances involved in any viewing of the proposed building, the existing vegetation along the western boundary and the copious opportunity for additional extensive landscaping with large canopy-type trees and the extensive vegetated character of the area, particularly the belt of substantial planting along the edge of the golf course. Taking these factors into account, we consider that the introduction of this proposed development would be reasonable. ... 52. Mr. Allard expressed concern about the risk to residents of the proposed new dwellings from flying golf balls. He requested two permit conditions – one requiring additional planting to assist in preventing entry onto the site of errant golf balls, the second requiring an indemnity for the golf club in the event that residents on this site suffer loss as a result of errant golf balls. 53. We have already discussed the first matter earlier. With respect to the issue of personal risk to residents and indemnity thereof, we do not consider that this is a matter that should bear on our decision. The golf club has ample opportunity to address these risks within its own site and, from our observation, is already taking actions (the recent establishment of further plantings) that would in part address such concerns, even if having been undertaken for other reasons. ... ": Gorniak v City of Frankston [2005] VCAT 2048. 

• Planning - errant golf balls: Eastman v East Gippsland Shire Council [2001] VCAT 935; [2001] VCAT 752.

• Planning - golf driving range: McNamara v Greater Shepparton CC & Ors [2002] VCAT 503.

• Planning: Mike Clayton, 'Clayton: Golf and Unintended Consequences' (Golf Australia, 18 October 2021) <https://www.golf.org.au/golf-an-unintended-consequences/>, archived at <https://archive.is/adJZc>. 

• ** 15m envelop - residential safety: ZFN Management Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges Shire Council [2005] VCAT 1730.

• ** Planning - setback line - 60m setback: "... Golf Course – findings: 59. The Council agreed with the applicant’s expert evidence with regards to the playability of the golf (Tcpt, 28 March 2019, p 109(10)) However, it raised a safety concern due to the potential conflict between land uses, being MHE and golf course. The concern is the relationship between the proposed dwellings that abut the fairway 18 and the risk of errant golf balls (Tcpt, 27 March 2019, p 8(10-20); p 109(20)) if residents decide to wander through the 60m setback line (Tcpt, 28 March 2019, p 115(35)) because they are used by golfers (Tcpt, 28 March 2019, p 116(15)). 60. In appreciating this point, the implementation of a safety zone is an effective way to deal with the issue and the plans have been amended accordingly. The proposal is to allow for a 60m buffer which will remain grassed to slow balls and be maintained by the MHE for use during the day by the golfers to retrieve their errant balls under an easement arrangement with the owner of the MHE. It will not be an exclusive use arrangement. It will be able to be used by the owner of the land or operator of the MHE in a legal sense for the purpose of landscaping, draining and maintenance. When the golf course is not in play, the residents of the MHE will have free access. At all times, the area will operate as common open space for use by the residents of the MHE and contain paths which the residents can use during play (Tcpt, 28 March 2019, p 116(20); 9 May 2019, p 33(5-50); p 34(5-40)). Condition 3.5 in Exhibit AE refers to the need to landscape and maintain and there will be a plan of management which would accompany the easement (Condition 4.7).61. The applicant accepts these conditions and I am satisfied that there is no issue arising in respect of safety or playability if the conditions as proposed are imposed. ...": Andersen v Tamworth Regional Council [2019] NSWLEC 1580.

> See also, Golf Course Design Standards, below. 

> See also, Alyce Kliese, 'Disputes in the Land and Environment Court in 2019' (The Development Site, 2019) <https://thedevelopmentsite.com.au/2019/12/08/disputes-in-the-land-and-environment-court-in-2019/>: "... Errant golf balls – in Anderson v Tamworth Regional Council the Court considered the impact of a proposed manufactured home estate on an adjacent golf course. Relevantly, the Council contended that an issue in the dispute was “the relationship between the proposed dwellings that abut the fairway 18 and the risk of errant golf balls… if residents decide to wander…“. The Court did not agree with the Council and the development was ultimately approved."

• ** discussion of distinction between public nuisance v private nuisance v negligence: Heymans & Anor v Reilly & Anor [2013] NSWDC 227: "[14.10] There is another basis on which, it appears, liability for the type of nuisance presently under discussion differs from that constituted by a substantial interference with enjoyment. It has been held that in the former, as distinct from the latter, it would not avail the defendant to plead that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent the injury being suffered, but the true rule may be that stated in Kraemers v A-G (Tas) [1966] Tas SR 113 that the plaintiff's cause of action is complete on proof of the substantial injury to property, and that it is for the defendant to show the reasonableness of any precautions that had been taken." 75. Unfortunately, no copy of Kraemers v A-G (Tas) can be accessed here in Coffs Harbour. It is not available through the Attorney-General's Department nor on any website that can be sought on the internet. My Associate has been clever enough to find an article published in the University of Western Australia Law Review in 1990 at p 129 which comments, amongst other things, on Kraemers' case. The article in question concerns "Private Nuisance, Fault and Personal Injuries". 76. It is really a discussion of whether a person who is physically injured and cannot sue in negligence might be able to sue in nuisance. The example being considered is whether a person who lived near a golf course was struck in the eye while sitting at his breakfast table by an errant golf ball which had come onto his land from a wayward stroke by a golfer and cause the loss of the eye. It is postulated that, in certain circumstances, the law of negligence would not permit such a plaintiff to recover if, for example, the golf course owner had taken all reasonable precautions to guard against the escape of wayward golf balls. 77. Yesterday evening, shortly before I adjourned, I was pointing out that a copy of Kraemers v A-G (Tas) was not available here at Coffs Harbour. I also referred to the fact that my Associate was able to find an article in 1990 UWALR 129 headed "Private Nuisance, Fault and Personal Injuries", which quoted, in part, some of what fell from the Court in Kraemers. At the foot of p 135 the article says this: "Similarly, in Kraemers v Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania ("Kraemers") it was said that in cases of nuisance by material damage to property, the plaintiff's cause of action is made out solely on proof of damage of which the plaintiff complains. Chief Justice Burbury said: '[I]t is not true to say that unreasonable conduct of the defendant vis-a-vis the plaintiff is an ingredient in the cause of action for nuisance ... Where material or substantial injury to property is caused (as in the present case) nothing more need be shown by the plaintiff. The criterion the law applies to the plaintiff's entitlement to sue is material injury to his property.' However, Chief Justice Burbury went on to say that once the plaintiff had made out the cause of action in this way, the onus of proof passed to the defendant who could excuse the interference by proof of the reasonableness of the defendant's use of property. Thus Kraemers is authority for the slightly more limited proposition that the plaintiff's cause of action does not depend on any of the surrounding circumstances (including any precautions taken by the defendant) but that the defendant's liability may do so. ... 103. ... Here, I am not satisfied that the plaintiffs have made out a valid case in the tort of private nuisance; that is, I have not found that any interference with the plaintiffs' land is actionable. Therefore, the plaintiffs' not succeeding in tort, I believe I am without any power to grant any injunction."

• comparison with figs: "20. A substantiating element of the applicants’ claim is based on a comparison between the figs and golf balls, which they show to be of a similar size when fresh. Using photographs of the two floating in separate glasses of water, the respondents display that the fig is far less dense than a golf ball. I suggest that the maximum fall distance onto a person below, being about 7.5 metres, would appear insufficient for the development of sufficient velocity to cause injury of any significance, even if the fruit was as hard and dense as a golf ball.": Nakkash v Jones [2020] NSWLEC 1374.

• Mangawhai Golf Club, NZ, Kaipara District Council - wayward golf balls - boundaries trees cut down - replanting - Club's mitigation of risks - correspondence released under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act: "... Hi Everyone On Monday I spoke with the Golf Club Manager about this issue. We both agreed that Mr Cook was unlikely to leave this issue alone (this has proved to be the case!) & I proposed another option which will definitely solve this problem in the short term, while the tree planting that the Club has undertaken grows to sufficient stature to act as a barrier to golf ball entering his property. The pine trees which were originally on this embankment & acted as a barrier to the wayward balls, were cut down about 2 years ago & it has been since then that Mr Cook has raised his concerns. I have offered to the Golf Club my services to broker a meeting with Mr Cook (he seems unwilling to meet with them at the moment), but do not wish to arrange this meeting until the Club’s Course Committee consider this other option. It will require funds to complete, & like the KDC, the Golf Club never has any surplus funds! At this stage, in my opinion, the Council is not liable for the problem & our legal opinion supports this view. I believe Council should continue to push the issue back at the Golf Club to address, which is where the responsibility & liability clearly lies. Cheers Peter ...Hi Natalie, Brookfield’s Opinion to Council is legally privileged so it’s not possible to release under LGOIMA. Much of Mr. Cook’s recent email is about Council’s responsibility under the RMA. While it’s not my area of responsibility any longer but I don’t believe that the Golf Course will have a Resource Consent or need to have one. The Golf Corse is situated on a recreation Reserve and its zoned Rural in the Kaipara District Plan. As such, Golf or other sports will be a permitted activity which can be carried out without consent within defined performance standards. The Golf Course was also established on the land prior to the enactment of the RMA and will also likely have an existing use right. The Resource consent team will be able to confirm the above. If any Officers are to meet with Mr. Cook, It should probably be led by Curt rather than Sue as he has responsibility for Reserves and H & S. In any case, As Councillor Wethey has proposed we should wait until the GC make a decision on his proposal. Regards John Burt. ...  Hi Natalie, John will answer this but as Cr Wethey has outlined. Its not Council responsibility and that Cr Wethey is happy to broker a meeting with the Golf Club Trees were chopped down 2 years ago as the trees were old. New ones were planted but will need time to grow Sue. ... Hi John Please address the concerns from Ross Cook below, I have sent the request for advice allowing us to make our position through to Linda as a LGOIMA, however I believe the advice was confidential so not sure if she will release it. He is not going to engage with the golf club as stated below, can you and/or Sue please meet with him to resolve his concerns and/or ascertain a plan of action? Even if it is just to clarify exactly how this is a civil matter and what he needs to do to go forward. Does the Golf course have any consents relating to their activities? I would have thought this was a license/permit situation managed by MBIE or similar. My response to Mr Cook was quite brief, as I was unclear as to the confidentiality of the information, it may be that I need to outline the exact steps taken by the golf club to mitigate the risks. If you could actually go to his property and sight the golf balls he states are hitting his house, to substantiate the claim, this would be a big step for us in terms of being able to resolve the issue, as currently it is a he said/she said situation meaning we can’t accurately determine the level of risk. Nga Mihi ... Hi Ross, Thanks for your patience after our Board meeting was postponed last month. As previously mentioned, the Board had their meeting yesterday and we discussed the ongoing issue with the 12th hole and stray golf balls. I would like to give you an update: While we are comfortable with what we have done so far (signage and tree planting) to help minimize this issue of potential golf balls landing near or on your property, we are going take another step further. We are going to trial moving the white tee block in towards the bank. This slight change in angle will make a significant difference to where the male players need to aim for their shot and ultimately where their ball will land. We will trial this for six weeks and see what the feedback is like from our members and of course yourself. During this trial, it’s essential that you contact the Club or myself as soon as possible when you hear or see golf balls on or near your property. Then, we are in a position to investigate the incident further. The Club has repeatedly asked that when you hear or see golf balls on or near your property that you contact us immediately but this hasn’t happened. For this trial to work, we do require your support so please contact us immediately. I am now sourcing a golf range mat for the trial. Once I have this, I will contact you again to let you know when the trial will start. I would hope this trial will start in June. I do hope this trial will be successful and be another step towards resolving this issue. If you have any questions, please let me know. ...": Correspondences between Ross Cook, Manghawai Golf Club and Kaipara District Council, various 2018-2019 <https://www.kaipara.govt.nz/uploads/LGOIMA/2019/Ross%20Cook%20-%20Legal%20advice%20re%20Health%20and%20Safety%20for%20Mangawhai%20Golf%20Club%2027052019.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9CLF-23MX>. 

• ** Safety review of wayward shots - summaries of past cases of nuisance: 'Confidential potential purchase of land – adjacent to the Willunga golf course' (City of Onkaparinga, South Australia, 7 June 2011) <https://www.onkaparingacity.com/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/released-confidentials/7-june-2011-item-11.1-agenda-released-confidential.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5JEV-PKN4>: " ... That Council note the risk management issues that are currently occurring at the Willunga golf course from wayward golf balls entering the adjacent private residences, particularly on Waverley Drive. ... An ongoing risk is associated with the continuation of wayward golf balls entering properties on Waverley Drive which represents an ongoing liability issue for us. To date, only minor claims for property damage have been paid through our insurance company. Given the probability of property damage into the future is high (without any mitigation measures taking place) avoidance of a claim in nuisance and potentially negligence leading to the payment of damages is likely at sometime in the future. This risk needs to be weighed against the cost of the risk mitigation option outlined in this report in order to alleviate and remove the risk by the creation of a 70 metre buffer. Should Council approve the purchase of the land there are still further costs associated with the risk mitigation option. Four of the course holes will need to be amended from their current layout to provide for the required buffer distances between fairways and residences as laid out in industry standards and identified in the concept plan at attachment 2. ... There has been a history of complaints relating to the impact of errant golf balls arising from sections of the course, most significantly from the 15th and 17th holes. During the 1999 review Council engaged a consultant to re-design part of the course to alleviate the impact on houses from the 15th fairway. The works undertaken in 1999, at a substantial cost, appear to have successfully addressed the specific problem arising from the 15th hole. Regular complaints of stray golf balls continue to be received from a different part of the course, adjacent to the 17th fairway. The 1991 development provided for housing within the golf course which has now been deemed by our golf course architect as having inadequate buffers between the fairway (particularly the 17th) and the houses on Waverley Drive. The acceptable standard is a 70 metre buffer. We currently have between 10 and 20 metres of buffer distance between the property boundary and the 17th fairway along the length of the rear boundary of the Waverley Drive properties. There have been several letters of complaint and numerous claims lodged from the owners along Waverley Drive for reimbursement of losses arising from property damage. Many of these have been settled on an ‘ex gratia’ basis. We have tried various measures to minimise the risk of balls being hit into the Waverley Drive properties, including substantial tree screening and the installation of a target midway along the fairway of the 17th to encourage players to alter their intended direction of shot. We have been responsive to the complaints and have continued to investigate options to address the ongoing problem. However, legal advice suggests that as council operates the course as a commercial enterprise, the duty owed to the adjoining owners is a high one to avoid nuisance and potentially negligence. To date the claims have surrounded property damage, however in correspondence to us the residents have foreshadowed that beyond the nuisance factor, the loss of the use and enjoyment of their land together with the heightened risk to their family when utilising their gardens from personal injury will no longer be tolerated. In comparison to court cases involving personal injury from wayward golf balls in instances where the injury has been catastrophic (brain damage) has received an award of damages in the order of $2.6 million. The owner of 8 Waverley Drive has provided us with the results of his own monitoring of the frequency of golf balls entering his property. In the 3 months beginning 1 December 2007, he collected 326 golf balls from within the boundary of his property (average of 25 golf balls per week). A further 378 balls were collected between 1 March and 31 May 2008, averaging 29 golf balls per week. ... Liability We have been advised that there is enough evidence of the continuing impact of the golf balls on the residences to support a claim of nuisance and potentially to establish negligence. As the owner and operator of a commercial enterprise we owe a duty to take reasonable care to prevent or alleviate the risk of foreseeable injury or damage. The question in relation to this particular issue is what is required of us to discharge this duty, ie. what is ‘reasonable’ action? A risk analysis has been undertaken by our insurers and their legal advisors to establish that the probability of harm is very high (should no action be taken). The likely seriousness of the harm is potentially very serious should a wayward ball strike a person. There is caselaw which identifies similar circumstances with substantial damages being awarded for a brain injury caused by a wayward ball striking a person in the head. In any risk assessment, the burden on the council in implementing a solution to the risk is taken into account when assessing the resources of the council. However, whilst the financial cost of alleviating the risk is still relevant, given that in this instance our role is in relation to a commercial enterprise and not our role as a public authority the obligation for us to provide a solution is higher. [See caselaw table] ... Interim risk management measures The main issue is that the 17th fairway is immediately adjacent to the residences on Waverley Drive and does not have the required buffer distances between the fairway and houses. An amount of $225,000 was provided in the 2010-11 budget to undertake augmentation works on the 17th hole to address the risk of golf balls entering into adjacent properties. The design has been the subject of an open tender and is currently contracted to be undertaken for a value of $89,782. The works will realign the way that golfers aim their shots to try and lessen the opportunity for wayward balls to enter houses. Whilst our golf course architect has stated that these works will go a long way to lessening the risk, until a 70 metre buffer can be achieved the risk will remain. As identified in the risk assessment and scan of legal decisions, any wayward balls into these properties will continue to provide a risk in relation to an action in nuisance. Therefore, these resources do not address the current level of risk and there remains a requirement for us to undertake a more comprehensive risk mitigation strategy. The suggested approach is that we acquire adjacent land parcels to provide the necessary buffer land. ..."

• 'The rise of high safety screens: The dilemmas facing golf course architects and golf clubs alike, with safety issues around errant golf balls in an increasingly litigious market, are in many cases now pitting golf course design against the sometimes more stark but certain containment option of high safety netting  ...' (2019) 21(4) Australian Turfgrass Management Journal 24-5 <https://d.lib.msu.edu/austm/224/OBJ/view#page=26>, archived at <https://perma.cc/56FK-XVQP>. 

Wayward / Errant Golf Ball - News - Mitigation by Council / Club / Golf Course

• "Wayward golf balls and several near misses have led to three holes at an Auckland golf course being closed. Three vehicles travelling along the Northwestern Motorway have been struck by golf balls coming from Mt Albert's Chamberlain Park in the three months between December and February this year Auckland Council manages the course and after carrying out a risk assessment has decided to temporarily close three holes. The closures come after the park has been in the headlines for its survival in recent years as left-leaning members of the local governing Albert-Eden Board drew up plans in 2019 to reduce the 18-hole course to nine holes and use the extra land as a park with walking, cycling and sporting facilities. However, a compromise was made in November of that year that saw the 18 holes retained but areas of the park were still opened up for cycle pathways and walkways. Kim O'Neill, acting general manager for Auckland Council's Community Facilities said the new closures would affect holes 5, 12 and 14. "The risk has been assessed as extreme as it is likely to result in serious harm or fatalities which has led to the closure. "Golf balls hitting vehicles on the motorway is something that we take very seriously. Until we can work out a long-term practical solution the best thing to do to ensure public safety is to close the three holes." There have been other reports in the past of golf balls hitting vehicles but with these latest incidents happening in close succession, the decision was made to close the holes immediately. "Most cases resulted in damage to the body of the vehicles, but in one of the incidents a golf ball struck and damaged the windscreen of a vehicle. "We were concerned that this could lead to serious harm to people, so the decision was made to act now". The closed holes were identified as being the most likely to result in golf balls on the motorway due to the direction of play. Attempts to reduce the risk of balls landing on the motorway were already in place, including moving tees to change the angle of potential golf swings after advice from a golfing specialist. A further report looking at the trajectory of golf balls from the golf course reinforced the call to close the three particular holes. Auckland Council's Community Facilities, which operates the golf course, will investigate options to address the closures and prepare a report to the local Albert-Eden Board which governs the park. The board will then make the final decision on the best way forward.": 'Fore! Three holes axed at Chamberlain Park golf course after vehicles struck' (NZ Herald, 26 April 2021) <https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fore-three-holes-axed-at-chamberlain-park-golf-course-after-vehicles-struck/YVV5CIMWU3ZI2JM6EYEJWY3CQM/>, archived at <https://archive.md/cFgVl>. 

> See also, 'Nz: Chamberlain Park Golf Course shuts holes after wayward drives risk lives on motorway' (Golf Industry Central, 28 April 2021) <https://www.golfindustrycentral.com.au/golf-industry-news/nz-chamberlain-park-golf-course-shuts-holes-after-wayward-drives-risk-lives-on-motorway/>, archived at <https://archive.is/xxzwB>. 

> Course re-aligned, reduced - temporary and long-term solutions: "... A preferred option has now been approved by the local board for three new greens to improve safety by directing play away from the adjoining motorway, while also creating space for a new neighbourhood reserve to be developed on the western side of the course, retaining the course’s 18 holes. Work will commence in 2024 with a total funding of $1.1m budgeted across four years for the renewal of assets at Chamberlain Park. It comes after in 2020 Auckland Council and the golf course operator were made aware of several incidents of vehicles travelling on the Northwestern Motorway being struck by golf balls causing damage to the vehicles, including one incident where a vehicle windscreen was damaged.Three holes were closed in April 2021, reducing the golf course from 18 holes to 15 holes. A trajectory report was commissioned in February of that year and the holes that were considered the most risk from golf balls leaving the course were holes number 5, 12 and 14 which all bounded the Northwestern Motorway. Temporary greens were then created to change the direction of play away from the motorway, reducing risk. These temporary greens have remained in place. Concurrently, in October 2019 the local board resolved to create a new neighbourhood park at the western end of Chamberlain Park, which requires the reconfiguration of the golf course. The option that has been approved would retain a reconfigured 18-hole golf course (par 67) and create the new neighbourhood park to the west of Waitītikō/Meola Creek which would restore the ecological values of the creek and enhance walking and cycling connections. The December 6 local board report said: “The risk of golf balls leaving the golf course and entering the neighbouring Northwestern Motorway cannot be totally mitigated, but moving the greens to new locations to draw the line of play away from the adjoining motorway will reduce the risk from extreme to moderate/high.” Several options were presented to the local board at workshops in April and November 2023 to address the motorway hazard. This included the installation of new safety fencing, creation of new greens, a mix of fencing and a new green, and a staged approach of new greens but including the opportunity to move holes to enable the future development of the neighbourhood park.": 'NZ: Chamberlain Park golf course to be reduced for safety reason' (Golf Industry Central, 9 December 2023) <https://www.golfindustrycentral.com.au/golf-industry-news/nz-chamberlain-park-golf-course-to-be-reduced-for-safety-reason/>, archived at <https://archive.is/TzWyN>. 

> 'Golf course closes holes after cars hit by wayward balls' (Star News Canterbury, 26 April 2021) <https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-national/golf-course-closes-holes-after-cars-hit-wayward-balls>, archived at <https://archive.is/Z966c>. 

> 'Auckland golf course shuts holes after wayward drives risk lives on motorway' (Nine News, 27 April 2021) <https://www.9news.com.au/national/new-zealand-golf-course-closes-holes-after-ball-smashes-through-windscreen-auckland/f64231e5-97d8-460e-a2c2-c6dd4c4b29ce>. 

> See also, City Vision, Print, Digital Marketing [2019] NZASA 359 (2 October 2019) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/nz/cases/NZASA/2019/359.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/Z2pBK>: "... 6. ... Response: This is explained above in the response to point 1. In addition, here are some specific quotes from golf experts to explain our statement. From the Jerry Tarde, Chairman of Golf Digest ... “If golf were invented today, it would be a nine-hole game. By no means are we questioning 18 holes, but our culture dictates shorter blocks of free time. I’d rather squeeze in nine holes than none.” http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2013-05/gwar-time-for-nine-bill- fields-0530 Tony Jacklin: “I am [a big advocate of Par-3 tournaments too]. I still love the big courses and the classic links but there are so many benefits to par-3 golf. I’ve hosted the British Par 3 championship at Nailcote Hall for the last eight years and it’s very successful. We do everything on a 10-acre site – with a nine-hole Par 3 course – that they do on big courses, other than players using woods. We entertain celebrities, play four days, have a tented village, a couple of thousand fans – and best of all, you get round in an hour no problem at all.” http://www.golfbreaks.com/blog/post/2015/07/06/Golfbreakscom-meets-Tony- Jacklin.aspx Jonathan Gaunt, Director, Gaunt Golf Design: “The real answer is to reduce existing 18-hole courses in urban/suburban areas down to 9-holes and provide a high quality practice area/driving range and short game practice zones.” http://www.golfbusinessnews.com/news/opinion/the-case-for-9-hole-golf- courses/". 

> See also, below, for discussion on golf course design standards/guidelines [H].

• Mikala Theocharous, 'Billionaire heiress Orna Triguboff lawyers up with golf club over stray balls' (Nine News, 2 February 2024) <https://www.9news.com.au/national/billionaire-heiress-orna-triguboff-lawyers-up-bondi-golf-club/52e9e839-60f8-4183-ba22-92cafd88f47b>, archived at <https://archive.md/x8F7s>.

> See also, Rohan Clarke, 'OPINION: High-rise Harry’s daughter declares war on Sydney golf course' (Australian Golf Digest, 5 February 2024) <https://www.australiangolfdigest.com.au/opinion-high-rise-harrys-daughter-declares-war-on-sydney-golf-course/>, archived at <https://archive.is/kfAqZ>. 

> Alex Hamer, 'Golf range balls upset Learmonth Street residents' (The Courier, 4 February 2015) <https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/2859998/golf-range-balls-upset-residents/>. 

• 'In firing line: Golf club neighbours fume as bad shots spray homes' (Gold Coast Bulletin, 14 December 2024) <https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/enough-is-enough-womans-long-drive-for-action-over-golf-ball-nightmare/news-story/8dde2e51352c0ad70fcbb7592539e284>: -- Surfers Paradise Golf Club: "Neighbours of this Queensland golf club are in the firing line - complaining of smashed windows, solar panels and garden ornaments plus near-miss head shots. ... Tee-reified residents claim rogue balls from a Gold Coast golf club are smashing homes and shattering nerves. Now they are in a battle for compensation ...": 

> See also, ''Neighbours from hell': Golfers turn Gold Coast retiree's home into danger zone | A Current Affair' (A Current Affair, Video, 28 December 2024) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwdBEiFkHSo>: "Ronda thought she had found her forever 0:02 home to live out her golden years but 0:04 there's a big ball-shaped problem she 0:06 lives next to a golf course and the 0:08 players can't be counted on to hit the 0:09 Fairway her home is a danger zone and 0:12 it's safe to say she's teed 0:16 off I am being smashed by golf balls 0:20 literally smashed Windows solar panels 0:24 statues you name it and plus my head 0:28 just like that 0:32 surrounded by Greenery wildlife and just 0:35 a 10-minute drive to the beach Ronda 0:38 thought she'd found her dream retirement 0:41 home here on the Gold Coast only to 0:44 spend her days dodging balls and it's 0:48 driving her 0:50 [Music] 0:52 M but I understanded where's it how is 0:55 it coming from how do they manage to do 0:57 it well it's come all the way through 0:58 those trees yes just amazing Zera yeah 1:02 you have to see this that is my second 1:05 bucket of balls that's a lot of balls 1:07 it's a lot of balls they're my neighbors 1:09 from hell that's who they are so keep 1:12 your balls to yourself when Ronda 1:14 retired 2 years ago she was sold on 1:17 Resort living in a gated community oh I 1:21 love it it's the most beautiful estate 1:23 people residents are wonderful all the 1:25 facilities are here for us ronda's home 1:28 backs right onto the surface is Paradise 1:30 Golf Club although she admits she knows 1:34 nothing about Golf and doesn't care to I 1:37 don't play golf I don't understand it 1:39 well the golf course wasn't a 1:40 consideration for me it meant nothing I 1:41 bought the house cuz I love the house 1:44 but Ronda didn't imagine she'd still 1:47 land in the 1:48 Ral just past your face 1:52 wper horrible and just you go what was 1:56 that to the critics who say well you 1:58 bought next to a golf course what would 2:00 you say to them I thought they just hit 2:02 them straight and also I contacted the 2:04 previous owner and asked her did she 2:06 have this problem she said she had a 2:08 maximum of four balls in four years but 2:11 Ronda has copped more balls than she can 2:14 count how heavy is it should we try and 2:16 pick it up it's very 2:19 difficult oh you're right you lift it it 2:22 is a bit heavy is and the other bucket 2:25 I've given away to friends and Tradesmen 2:28 um oh wow this is the second bucket it's 2:30 ridiculous so how often are these balls 2:32 in your yard normally every day we get 2:34 some and a lot out the front that you 2:36 know which just amazes me that it goes 2:38 over the house how does that happen 2:40 Ronda says she's almost been caught in 2:43 the firing line twice these are the two 2:46 balls that hit me the first one in 2022 2:49 and the second one in 24 I've documented 2:52 them then she found out her solar panels 2:55 had been pelted I had my guttering 2:57 gutters cleared and the gentleman said 2:59 to me you have the worst damage for golf 3:01 balls in the entire estate he said do 3:04 you know that you've got smashed solar 3:06 panels I went you're kidding and now 3:10 this the window it's a great big hole 3:12 isn't it yes and there's where the golf 3:14 ball smashed all this we were inside I I 3:17 started screaming and ran out but that 3:19 was the loudest bang I have ever ever 3:21 heard and it's not just Ronda copping 3:24 balls her neighbor Shannon also had 3:27 smashed Windows even Dam image to her 3:30 car she was so fed up she moved 3:34 apparently the word is slicing that's 3:35 what I've been told by golfers so 3:37 there's a lot of slices around and I 3:39 don't know whether it's a coincidence 3:41 the only day we don't get golf balls is 3:43 ladies day ronda's leaving her window 3:46 like this until the golf club pays for 3:49 it you're on 3:51 notice surface Paradise Golf Club fix my 3:55 problems so you have documented 3:58 absolutely 4:01 and what I didn't email I hand delivered 4:04 this was the statue that was smashed by 4:06 the golf ball and there's the golf ball 4:09 still in it what have you been saying to 4:10 them well I've been very courteous I 4:12 haven't been rude and in everyone I've 4:15 said can you please meet with me and we 4:17 can discuss this and and help me um 4:20 nothing nothing Ronda even contacted the 4:23 club's insurance company it had more 4:26 questions than answers but what time 4:29 what date and who who was the golfer 4:31 hello I haven't got a clue the golfers 4:34 come past here you know in groups some 4:36 golfers do leave a first name on their 4:39 balls oh hello who is 4:42 this Dale Dale's got a bad shot doesn't 4:45 he certainly they've all got bad shots 4:48 since media got involved the club has 4:51 lodged a claim to fix only ronda's 4:54 window their insurance has to pay for 4:56 this same as has to pay for the solar 4:59 and other damage that I get so what's 5:01 the solution how do we fix this surely 5:03 the god they can do something you know 5:05 just reroute things do that I'm 5:08 completely over it as I said quote me 5:11 enough is 5:13 enough poor Ronda I love it how she 5:16 thought that they would hit the Fairway 5:17 we requested a response from The Golf 5:19 Club of course and the general manager 5:20 told us it's been forwarded to their 5:22 solicitor but we won't be getting a 5:24 response over Christmas."

> See also, ''Neighbours from hell': Golfers turn Gold Coast retiree's home into danger zone' (Nine News, 24 December 2024) <https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/season-2024/clip-cm526z57900030hqzgl7oiirz>. 

• Nigel Gladstone, 'Golf club forced to close a fairway and realign holes because players have hit balls over nets into kids' (Daily Telegraph, 31 March 2015) <https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/north-shore/golf-club-forced-to-close-a-fairway-and-realign-holes-because-players-have-hit-balls-over-nets-into-kids/news-story/1ffd24a9f4045caa2b466305ab7842b2>, archived at <https://archive.is/BCYDJ>. 

> Northbridge Golf Club.

> See also, holes 5 and 9, Northbridge Golf Club: "... The signature hole of Northbridge, a small green targeted from an elevated tee. Left is a bunker and right and the rear of the green is a challenge. Avoid over clubbing, better to play short. The white disc at the rear of the green is your point of alignment. Sighting a wayward ball is difficult from the tee. ... A good tee shot to the plateau should leave a 100m second to the green. Any wayward shot to the right may be out-of-bounds and to the left may find the trees bordering the fairway or worse.": 'The Course' (Northbridge Golf Club, Webpage) <https://northbridgegolfclub.com.au/golf-club-north-sydney/>, archived at <https://archive.md/7Ltfp>. 

• Campbellgellie, 'Wild balls slice 2nd-hole par five to three' (Courier Mail, 20 May 2016) <https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gladstone/wild-balls-slice-2ndhole-par-five-to-three/news-story/12242261a0ad6899767386f4354f4628>, archived at <https://perma.cc/48BK-QW4L>:  "WAYWARD hacks on the second hole of the Gladstone Golf Course have made a 326m divot on the course as the club ducks for cover from flying balls and rising insurance claims. For years homes, cars and businesses along Philip St have been peppered by flying balls as golfers miss the wide fairway trying to get extra distance on the long par five. The club board has finally moved to reduce the length of the hole by 326m to bring the tee up in line with the Gladstone GP Superclinic making it almost impossible to hit. Gladstone Golf Club general manager Will Shroeder said the club's insurance was becoming more expensive because of claims from miscued shots. ...".

• 'Wayward golf balls wreaking havoc on residents in picturesque Perth suburb' (Nine News, Video, 30 September 2024) <https://www.9now.com.au/a-current-affair/season-2024/clip-cm1lz6tzv000a0hpej297b5n3>. -- Roleystone. 

• * 'Mona Vale Golf Course Change after woman hit by golf ball' (Daily Telegraph, 4 September 2018) <https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/manly-daily/mona-vale-golf-course-change-after-woman-hit-by-golf-ball/news-story/49b68d7450069503e0a1f1dbedb0fc6a>: "... MONA Vale Golf Club is considering changing its 17th hole to better protect people using a nearby public pedestrian path from wayward golf balls. ..."

> <https://www.mvgc.com.au/cms/course/hole-17/>. 

• Steve Marshall, 'Man hit in head by golf ball says 'don't blame the birds' (Nine News, 2020) <https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/a-current-affair-families-near-course-say-under-siege-from-flying-golf-balls/173041a8-770d-4795-bd7f-d2b317201e19>, archived at <https://archive.is/R0ucC>. 

• Martin Alfonsin Larsen, 'Golf course to close after wayward balls damage 800-year-old barn' (The Telegraph, 5 September 2024) <https://www.yahoo.com/news/golf-course-close-wayward-balls-181142810.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/QV3IP>. 

• ?effect of errant golf balls on valuation: Caseldan Pty Ltd v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2016] QLAC 1.

• ?Intentional Torts?

[C-A] Trespass to the Person

• Trespass to the person - intentional, reckless, wilful or negligent conduct (elements of fault in trespass) - Action on the Case for Wilful Injury / Tort of Negligence: see summary in Stanley Yeo, 'Comparing the Fault Elements of Trespass, Action on the Case and Negligence' (2001) 5 Southern Cross University Law Review 142 <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SCULawRw/2001/6.pdf>; cf McHale v Watson (1964) 111 CLR 384, 388, Windeyer J doubted if, in an action for trespass to the person “based upon a battery by a blow or a missile”, the plaintiff is required to aver and prove that the defendant’s act in delivering the blow or the missile is either intentional or negligent. As recently as 1988 this was still considered an open question in New South Wales: see Platt v Nutt (1988) 12 NSWLR 231, 248-249: Ollier QCA, [9]. 

[D] Golf Club Liability

• Duty to warn of hazards (wildlife): Omission by a golf club to warn kangaroos might attack players amounted to a breach of duty: Shorten v Grafton District Golf Club Ltd [2000] NSWCA 58, [14]-[16]: "As the respondent correctly submitted, negligence by a defendant is not established by proof that a plaintiff who was owed a duty of care was injured. Whether or not a defendant has breached its duty depends upon a comparison between its conduct and the “measure”, “scope” or “content” of its duty. Morgan v Sherton Pty Ltd (1999) 46 NSWLR 141, 145 [19] For present purposes, the question can be formulated by asking whether the respondent’s duty included an obligation to provide golfers on its course, including the appellant, with an adequate warning of the small risk of injury from an occasional aggressive kangaroo. The principal, if not the only, bases for the respondent’s argument that the trial judge was correct in answering that question in the negative were the low level of the risk of injury to a golfer from a kangaroo and the proposition that warnings are often disregarded. The example given by the respondent of a warning which was disregarded was of a warning that something should be done which was adverse to the interests of golfers (namely replacing divots), not favourable to their interests. It is obvious that warnings could have been easily notified and appropriately emphasised at virtually no cost or inconvenience to the respondent. Importantly, the respondent knew both of the risk to golfers and that most, if not all, golfers were unaware of the risk. In my opinion, giving due weight to the trial judge’s opposite view, the respondent’s failure to warn golfers of a risk of injury of which they were unaware was a breach of the respondent’s duty of care to golfers, even though the risk was small.".

> 'Teen golfer wins club suit over savage kangaroo attack' (Deseret News, 24 March 2000) <https://www.deseret.com/2000/3/24/19497901/teen-golfer-wins-club-suit-over-savage-kangaroo-attack/>. 

> Bianca Bachetti, 'Kangaroo attacks golfers on Gold Coast links, leaving one with deep lacerations' (ABC News, 1 August 2017) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-01/kangaroo-attacks-woman-at-hope-island-golf-course/8764230>. 

> Kangaroos in heat - attack on golf course: Kyle Bartholomew, 'Kangaroo attacks on golfers may become 'more common' as pressure for space increases' (ABC News, 21 February 2018) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-21/golfing-kangaroos-sunshine-coast/9470232>, archived at <https://archive.is/HWON5>. 

> See also, kangaroo attacks - Arundel Hills golf course, Gold Coast - closed down: 

-> Duncan Murray, 'Unruly roos torment golfers as troubled club shuts its doors' (News.com.au, 25 May 2022) <https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/unruly-roos-torment-golfers-as-troubled-club-shuts-its-doors/news-story/7986293de58e3cbb6a62326b1f0ae4ad>, archived at <https://archive.md/FtOQU>: "... Golfers are being warned not to be complacent when dealing with kangaroos on the course following a spate of nasty attacks. One Queensland golf club was forced to close this week after a number of a highly publicised attacks earlier this year. Last week, a 64-year-old player was repeatedly kicked by a kangaroo at the Arundel Hills golf course on the Gold Coast, leaving her with large cuts to her neck, arms and back. Less than a month before, a 69-year-old woman was rushed to hospital after being kicked and stomped by a roo at the same course. Administrators said Arundel Hills club was also suffering from financial and other challenges, causing the business to close, according to reports. The club had previously placed warning signs around the course alerting players to the dangers of approaching kangaroos. Queensland compensation lawyer Bruce Simmonds from Parker Simmonds Solicitors and Lawyers said signs alone may not be enough to absolve clubs of legal responsibility in the event of an attack. “Golf clubs – the owners of the golf course – are legally liable if someone is injured on that property due to the property owner’s failure to remove a safety hazard or sufficiently warn users of the presence of a risk,” Mr Simmonds said. As most golfers know, kangaroos are not an unusual sight on courses across Australia and very rarely pose any issues."

-> Antoinette Milienos, 'Golf club famous for being attacked by kangaroos collapses after charging members $3,600-a-year for run-down facilities and an empty bar' (Daily Mail, 25 May 2022) <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10851289/Gold-Coast-Arundel-Hills-Country-Club-administration-kangaroo-attacks-finance-troubles.html>, archived at <https://archive.md/YiUrJ>. 

-> Large kangaroo kicks woman to the ground in unprovoked attack on Gold Coast golf course' (The Guardian, 29 April 2022) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/29/large-kangaroo-kicks-woman-to-ground-in-unprovoked-attack-golf-course-gold-coast-queensland-australia-arundel-hills-country-club>. 

-> 'Golfers at Risk If they Hit a Roo' (MacArthur Advocate, 29 December 2024) <https://www.macarthuradvocate.au/news/item/2387-golfers-at-risk-if-they-hit-a-roo>, archived at <https://archive.is/I6wlc>: "... However, if you engineer your encounter with a kangaroo, fines may apply as they are a native protected species. The Crimes Act 1900 makes it an offence to kill or seriously injure an animal. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years imprisonment. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979  makes it an offence to be cruel to an animal, with a $4,400 maximum, fine or one year imprisonment, or both.".

> See also, ''Stampede' of Kangaroos Invades Melbourne Golf Course' (BBC News, Video, 7 March 2024) <https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-68501403>: "A local golfer was left stunned after the mob of marsupials interrupted his game at the Heritage Golf & Country Club near Melbourne. Stephen Roche, who filmed the video, described the incident as a "fair dinkum stampede" and can be heard warning the animals to "not stand on my golf ball". This isn't the first time this has happened. The golf club was at the centre of a controversy in 2021 when it announced it would carry out a culling of kangaroos that went onto the golf course. After public outcry, the club later reversed the decision and erected fences instead."

> Emma Musgrave, 'Kangaroo fiasco sparks legal warning for Qld businesses' (Lawyers Weekly, 26 May 2022) <https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/sme-law/34461-kangaroo-fiasco-sparks-legal-warning-for-qld-businesses>, archived at <https://archive.md/0AfcW>: "Parker Simmonds Solicitors & Lawyers litigation director Bruce Simmonds has flagged several kangaroo attacks on golfers at a Gold Coast country club has prompted business owners to practise extra vigilance or else face possible legal action. ... Mr Simmonds said the Gold Coast club in question may face legal action; however, liability claims have recently become complicated because the business was put in administration last week. While the future of the club is unknown, Mr Simmonds said the matter offers an important reminder for owners to issue clear warnings to customers if their business is situated on or around wildlife. “This problem’s been going on for years. I have had clients injured on golf courses before, not just from kangaroos but other hazards such as falling tree branches,” he said. “Golf clubs – the owners of the golf course – are legally liable if someone is injured on that property due to the property owner’s failure to remove a safety hazard or sufficiently warn users of the presence of a risk.” Going forward, Mr Simmonds said all golf courses should be subjected to strict risk assessments and safety risks identified. “In Queensland you need to watch out for kangaroos and crocodiles. After the recent floods in north Queensland there were reports of crocodiles washed into people’s backyards. “While the public is accustomed to encountering kangaroos at zoos and animal display attractions, it’s a whole different world if you intrude on their world and they’ll attack you. “Golf courses are a common habitat for roos and the owners of the golf course can’t just put up a warning sign and write off their legal liability if players are attacked by wild animals,” he said."

-> see also, 'Golf club legally liable for unruly kangaroos' (The Express) <https://mail.theexpress.net.au/news/74-golf-club-legally-liable-for-unruly-kangaroos>, archived at <https://archive.md/G2DA1>. 

> Mike Cherney, 'New Golf Course Hazard: Chinese Tourists Chasing Kangaroos' (Wall Street Journal, 7 December 2016) <https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-pelting-a-kangaroo-is-the-least-of-your-worries-1481128056>, archived at <https://archive.md/PXCmb>. 

> Michael Flynn, 'The Sign Said, "Beware of Duffers" - The Liability of Golf Course Operators for Failing to Post Warning Signs' (2002) 12 Seton Hall Journal of Sport law 1 <https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=sports_entertainment>. 

• Slippery slope (no pun): "... '[g]olf courses are not nurseries' and that reasonable care did not require the golf course to be reconstructed or signposted' ... So I come back to where I was, there was nothing unusual about this slope in relation to the potential for sliding (if that term be preferred) in the manner the appellant slid. Although the appellant suggested that it was of no relevance, it seems to me that it is relevant as a matter going to what reasonable care required that in well over 50,000 rounds of golf played prior to the appellant's fall, no fall or complaints of unsafety in relation to this slope had been reported to the course professional and there was no evidence of any other report of a fall or complaint of slipperiness. 10 It must then be asked, what was required of the respondent in fulfilment of the duty of care earlier assumed as a response to such risk as was posed by the slope and its potential for sliding or slipping? In my opinion different construction, re-configuration, barricading off or signposting of this slope was not called for. Golfers could see the steepness of the slope, that there was grass and undoubtedly dirt beneath the grass, and on this occasion that the slope was wet and the ground was water laden. The potential for sliding or slipping was there to be seen, and I do not accept that this was, avoiding the old words of a concealed trap and using words later adopted by the appellant, a hidden hazard. The appellant could have walked to the side and approached his ball by going around the edge of the green instead of going down the slope, which was not a very long additional walk at all. This is one ground of distinction from State of New South Wales v Steed (2001) NSWCA 178 on which the appellant placed considerable reliance. The other is that in that case turf relatively recently laid on a slope but not sufficiently bonded to it did slide when the plaintiff stepped on it. That is not this case. 11 It seems to me that in this case it must be firmly borne in mind that it is not necessary that an occupier guard against any and every foreseeable risk, or against risk arising from an entrant deliberately behaving in a foolhardy manner. In Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431 it was emphasised, albeit in a different context, that the required response to a foreseeable risk is a reasonable response, not one of absolute protection. It is all the more necessary to bear this in mind when one is dealing with the playing of a sport, because as Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 clearly demonstrates participation in sport involves an appreciation of the risks of that participation, here the risks of negotiating wet slopes on a golf course. In the end it seems to me that the felicitous statement of Mason P in Franklins Self Serve Pty Limited v Bozinovska (CA, 14 October 1998, unreported) is pertinent, namely: "In some circumstances the danger is so obvious that, when coupled with the likelihood that persons will exercise reasonable care for their own safety, the duty is satisfied by letting the plainly obvious speak for itself." 12 The respondent was not the appellant's nursemaid, and there was no breach of a duty of care. The same considerations, in my view, lead to the conclusion that there was no breach of the equivalent duty of care in contract, no cause of action in nuisance, and no contravention of s 42 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 or breach of any warranty which might have been implied under s 74 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, they being various other ways in which the appellant's case was put below.: Buttita v Strathfield Municipal Council [2001] NSWCA 365, [6], [9]-[12] (Giles JA). -- nil. See also, Chris Salerno, 'Negligence and the Condition of the Sports Field: Williams v Latrobe Council [2007] TASSC 2' (2006) 25(2) UTAS Law Review 180 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2006/11.pdf>.  

• Golf buggy toppling over embankment on golf course: "There is thus no basis in any of these matters for disturbing His Honour's conclusions of fact, whether they are approached in their character as findings of credibility, or of primary fact, or as inferences of negligence or want of reasonable care on the part of the defendant. As to the latter, the Judge thought that the defendant should have provided a sign, or perhaps a series of marker pegs, so as to warn users of the proximity of the dangerous slope. For my part, I would have thought something more substantial would be required in order fully to discharge the duty of care; but, in any event, even the modest precaution thought by the Judge to be necessary was not provided by the defendant.": Keperra Country Golf Club v Salmon [1992] QCA 324 <https://jade.io/article/205441>. 

• 'Fatality fine for club: A golf club has been fined £75,000 after it was found guilty of three health and safety breaches that led to a golf course manager being killed by a falling branch' (2018) Oct Greenkeeper International 20 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2018oct.pdf#page=20>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5JYQ-EP7P>. 

• Occupiers' Liability. See Occupiers' Liability. 

• Plaintiff slipped and fell on a golf course, sloped area leading from an elevated tee -- breach not made out: "44. On balance I find that the plaintiff stepped onto woodchip mulch as described by Mr Parker ie, a mixture of pieces of bark and mulch, rather than an aggregation of single and loose pieces of woodchips. ... 46. I accept the evidence of Mr Parker in relation to maintenance. I am satisfied that the defendant's employees namely Mr Parker and the staff under his control carried out adequate inspections and maintenance of the golf course generally and some areas in particular including the area in question. The defendant is not under an absolute liability. I do not accept that the plaintiff walked towards the area in which the woodchip mulch was located because he thought it was a pathway provided by the golf management for players to access the women's tee on the 10th hole or to exit the men's tee and walk to the 10th fairway. The plaintiff did not say that this was the case when he gave his evidence. He said that he followed "a slightly worn track where many people had walked down previously. It was still grass of course". The plaintiff was walking the same line down the slope that he and Mr Brown had walked before.  The photograph, Exhibit 1, shows that the plaintiff and Mr Brown had to walk much further beyond the area in which the woodchips were located to get to the women's tee of the 10th hole.  The area in which the woodchips were located was surrounded by a vast area of grass on the sloping surface.  Taking the plaintiff's line he would have had to have walked over grass, for six to seven metres on his evidence, to get to the area in which the woodchips were located and then, by reference to the photograph, after he had walked the length of the area in which the woodchips were located of about five metres he would have had to have walked over a grassed area for more than another six to seven metres to get to the women's tee of the 10th hole. I find that the defendant did not provide any woodchip pathway or any pathway at all for golfers to walk down the slope on the eastern side of the men's tee of the 10th hole to get to the women's tee of the 10th hole or the 10th fairway.  There was a track of some sort on the western side of the men's tee but so far as such access was concerned on the eastern side there was a vast sloping area and it was left to golfers to decide what route they took.  I am not satisfied that the plaintiff went the way he did because he thought the area in which the woodchips were located was a pathway.  I consider it likely that he went the way he did because he and Mr Brown had gone that way before.  So also had lots of other but not all other golfers. I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has established par 6.2 of the particulars of negligence namely that the defendant provided a pathway with woodchips which had a tendency to slip and move whilst being walked on which was unsafe in all the circumstances. While I accept that the plaintiff slipped and fell I am not satisfied on balance on the evidence before me on why he did so. The plaintiff said that the spikes on his golf shoe must have hit on a piece of wood. In my opinion this was really speculation on the plaintiff's part. Mr Parker rejected the suggestion that spikes on golf shoes would not grip the mulch and bark mixture. I accept him as a reliable witness on this point.": Benness v Town of Cambridge [2000] WADC 197.

• Tree falling during golf game, crushed: Huntington v Kew Golf Club [2017] VSC 612. 

• Alleged indequate fencing, struck by golf ball: "Another example of a case that did not require expert evidence is City of Richmond v Delmo[57].  However, it is a case of the use of common sense rather than common knowledge and experience.  In Delmo, the plaintiff's car was struck by a golf ball that passed through a fence on the defendant's golf course. The plaintiff suggested that the risk of damage could have been avoided by using a different type of fencing. There was evidence that the fence was a typical cyclone wire mesh fence with an interlocking pattern of wire strands. Smith J held that the inference was open that, if the wire fencing could be manufactured in an interlocking pattern, it could be manufactured in other patterns, including a pattern with smaller openings. The defendant did not lead evidence to suggest that this was not possible.": Swain v Waverley Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4, [49]. 

• obiter, obvious risks - height differential: "69. An example that springs to mind is what one sometimes sees on suburban grounds with cricket pitches, or greens on golf courses, where there is a pronounced elevation of the pitch or green from the grass surface upon which the pitch or green sits. The height differential in these two other examples is “obvious.” The thrust of the warning given to the Council in the Inspection Reports was that the mulch was intended to be at the same level as the wet pour surface, to create the appearance (to users of the playground) and reality that there would be a seamless transition for a walker crossing both surfaces.": Salman v Hornsby Shire Council (No.2) [2023] NSWDC 527 -- decision overturned on appeal. 

• Accidental death from falling tree branch, dangerous trees, inspection and maintenance of trees, negligence; dangerous tree:  Inquest into the death of William Bernard Brown [2016] NTMC 4 <https://jade.io/article/481320>. 

• Occupiers' Liability, errant golf ball, negligence: "... If M.I.M. owed such a duty as that stated, the next question is to identify those to whom such duty was owed. In Hilder v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd. [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1434 the defendant permitted small boys to play soccer on area of vacant land adjacent to its factory that adjoined a busy highway. During their play a ball went over the low wall surrounding the land. It caused a motor cyclist on the highway to fall sustaining injuries from which he died. Ashworth J. thought it would have been a simple matter to have affixed wire netting to the wall, and held the defendant liable to the deceased’s widow. The plaintiff in Bolton v. Stone [1951] A.C. 850 was, on the facts there, less fortunate. There are some who regard that decision simply as a concession to cricket as a national sport of England. If so, similar considerations do not prevail in Scotland, where in Lamond v. Glasgow Corporation[1968] Sc.L.T. 291 the managers of a golf course were held liable for injuries sustained by a pedestrian walking in a lane adjacent to the golf course when he was hit on the head by a ball struck by an errant golfer. In both cases the decision might have been rested on liability in public nuisance to users of the highway (if, indeed, the law of Scotland acknowledges the existence of a delict of that kind); but in both the decision proceeded on the basis of negligence on the part of the owner or occupier of land in failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable danger. In Hilder’s case (supra) and in Lamond v. Glasgow Corporation (supra), the plaintiff was not present on the land from which the danger emerged but was on the highway, where he had every right to be. Does it make a difference that the deceased here was on the land itself? Putting aside for the moment questions of assumption of risk and contributory negligence, I cannot see that it does. The right to go upon a highway is simply a licence or liberty to be on and to pass along it: Harrison v. Duke of Rutland [1893] 1 Q.B. 142. The right of the deceased to be at the speedway on the day in question was a licence of equal degree. He was at least as foreseeably likely to be injured by the activities conducted there as were the pedestrian users of the highway in the English and Scottish cases.": Wilkinson v Joyceman [1985] 1 Qd R 567, 590-1. 

• "This situation has implications, and suggests a warning, in relation to sports law as a subject of study. The collection or classification oflaw on the basis of sport subject-matter may be intrinsically interesting but has next to no value in fostering legal knowledge. It may in fact be dangerous. An anecdote is worth recalling. Some time in 1988, the writer received an unsolicited letter and other material from a person who had suffered serious and permanent injury from a flying golf ball while playing golf on a public course. The principal issue was course design. An enclosed opinion by counsel was not optimistic about the chances in a damages action. The opinion was drafted on the footing of the special common law rules as to invitees, licensees and so on in relation to premises. That law had prevailed in New South Wales for many years and no Occupiers' Liability Act had been enacted. The victim, however, had consulted a recent legal text in one of the public libraries and reached the view that Her Majesty's Counsel was in error. That indeed was the case. In a line of authority culminating in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) ALJR 180, the High Court of Australia had abandoned the special rules and established that all such cases should be decided in accordance with the general principles of negligence. If the most recent "sporting" case on occupiers' liability had been in point, the opinion of counsel would have been correct. However, none of the landmark cases in the departure from the special common law rules had any connection with sport. At the denouement, Mrs Zaluzna was a migrant who slipped on wet tiles in the foyer of a supermarket. In the result, the opinion badly missed the bus. The extreme logic of this position might seem to be the suggestion that, whatever may pass muster in ordinary language, there is essentially no methodological justification for characterising legal matters as sports law. That suggestion is disavowed. For the consideration of a legal issue, the focus on sport as the subject-matter may have advantages in establishing a distinct framework to which authority must be fitted. That implies-what is in any case the task of the common law-testing the correlation of authority to context. The interplay between the context of sport and legal authority may be conveniently examined within the debatable territory of exclusion clauses. ...": Kelly, Maurice, 'The characterization of sports law' [1993] NZLRFSP No 8, 1, 11-12 <https://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/journals/NZLRFSP/1993/8>. 

• "... Millbrook negotiated with X-Ray Trust as to the terms on which X-Ray Trust would withdraw their objection. Mr Cartmell says the directors acknowledged that a green, well designed golf course could possibly retain some of the natural character of Dalgleish Farm but only on certain specific conditions which were laid out in the agreement. They say that, through an agreement, they wanted to protect their privacy and have certainty going forward regarding land use, housing placement and height, mounding, amenity planting, golf course design, greens placement and more. ...": X-Ray Trust Limited v Millbrook Country Club Limited [2021] NZHC 1749.

• A club has been found liable for the negligent design of a golf course leading to a golfer being blinded in one eye when struck by a ball. On appeal, the verdict in favour of the plaintiff was upheld: Albany Golf Club Inc v Carey [1987] Aust Torts Reports 69,081 (80-139) (FC, SC of WA). See also, Westlaw, Personal Injury Law Manual NSW, Sporting Injuries, PINSW 487814861 [SI.120].  

• Golf club design, buffer zones: Natalie Bird, 'Buffer Zones and the Recreational Golf Sector: A Negligence Case Content Analysis' (PhD Thesis, University of Arkansas Fayetteville, July 2020) <https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5370&context=etd>. 

• Nuisance: Castle v St Augustine’s Links (1922) 38 T.L.R. 615. 

> see also, obiter in 777 Enterprise & Anor v Abdul Samat Salinri [1993] MLJU 191 (Malaysia). 

• Nuisance: Chapman v Plenty Views Pty Ltd, Di Carlo and Di Carlo [2009] VCC 1271 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCC/2009/1271.html>. -- held that it constituted a nuisance. See discussion of cases cited within.  

• Nuisance, VCAT decisions: 'The Legal Nuisance of Balls over Fences' (Golf Australia, 2020) <https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/00034966-source.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/FF9W-KLYJ>. 

• Elsa Brenner, 'Golf: Pros and Cons of Proximity' (New York Times, 26 April 2012) <https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/realestate/golf-pros-and-cons-of-proximity.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/gcJMV>. 

• Liability of sport provider under statutory guarantees (ACL, CCA), guarantee that services be provided with due care and skill: see:

>  Joachim Dietrich, 'Uncertainty, unfairness and complexity in the context of recreational activities' (2013) 117 Precedent 53 <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2013/59.pdf>. 

> Joachim Dietrich, 'Liability for personal injuries from recreational services and the new Australian Consumer Law: Uniformity and simplification, or still a mess?' (2011) 19 Torts Law Journal 55 <https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/13647027/0980026394.pdf>. 

• ?Vicarious liability - control of pace of play, control by organisation over conduct of players: "... Secondly, tennis is clearly not the only sport in which it might be appropriate to hold a regulator vicariously liable, and it is for such reasons that I examine how this analysis might also be applied to the sport of golf. The potential for injury here is obvious, particularly to spectators. This is evidenced by the recent incident at the 2018 Ryder Cup, where an onlooker was blinded in one eye after being hit by Brooks Koepka's wayward shot.Footnote118 Whilst there was no evidence that Koepka was negligent in his drive, it would not be difficult to imagine – following the line of ‘reckless duffers’ cases such as Pearson v Lightning Footnote119 and Phee v Gordon Footnote120 – a slightly different scenario in which negligence could be established. For instance, had it been established that Koepka was intoxicated when he took the shot – much like former professional golfer Rocco Mediate, who admitted that drinking whilst on PGA Tour courses was ‘normal’ for himFootnote121 – it may have been justifiable to hold the organisation responsible for this harm. ...  this paper also established that it may be appropriate to impose vicarious liability on NGBs and competition organisers for the tortious actions of non-funded professional athletes too. This was illustrated most prominently with reference to the sports of tennis and golf.": James Brown, 'The vicarious liability of sports governing bodies and competition organisers' (2023) 43(2) Legal Studies 221 <https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2022.34>. 

> clubs and courses generally have control over pace of play, tee time intervals, etc, eg: 

-> see 'Saturday 4th January – Pace of play Trial Initiative' (Virginia Golf Club, 27 December 2024) <https://www.virginiagolf.com.au/cms/2024/12/saturday-4th-january-pace-of-play-trial-initiative/>, archived at <https://archive.is/I3Xpm>. 

-> see, 'Pace of Play Policy' (Cairns Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.cairnsgolfclub.com.au/golf/pace-of-play>, archived at <https://archive.md/OOuzD>. 

-> see, 'Rules and Etiquette' (Indooroopilly Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.indooroopillygolf.com.au/cms/golf/rules-ettiquette>, archived at <https://archive.md/TRymn>. 

-> 'A Preamble on Slow Play' (Brisbane Golf Club, 2016) <https://www.brisbanegolfclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Match-Slow-Play-Strategy-Paper-August-2016.pdf>. 

-> 'Pace of Play' (Bunbury Golf Club, 9 February 2017) <https://www.bunburygolfclub.com.au/cms/pace-of-play/>, archived at <https://archive.md/KrPM2>. 

-> 'Ettiquette' (Metropolitan Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.metropolitangolf.com.au/cms/golf/rules-etiquette/playing-guidelines/>, archived at <https://archive.md/F76P6>

-> see, Pollard v Trude QCA, [25]; but no claim was made in this case against the club and their control over the pace of play and local rules of going ahead of play. 

> similar outcome may also be achieved with occupiers' liability - control over premises: eg, Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9 (indoor cricket); Windley v Gazaland Pty Ltd T/A Gladstone Ten Pin Bowl [2014] QDC 124 (ten pin bowling - discussion of Pollard v Trude within) -- eg duty to warn of risks of "ready-golf" or modified local rule of going ahead of play; rules enforcement, pace-of-play marshalls, accident prevention, etc. See also, Albany Golf Club v Carey, where a person was struck by a golf ball hit by another player. He successfully sued the owners of the golf course for the positioning of the tee‑off too close to the adjoining fairway. Although, see Callinan J's comments critical of Albany Golf Club v Carey in Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] HCATrans 532 <https://jade.io/article/737740>.

> see also, on Occupiers' liability - control over and of the premises (other than static condition of the premises) (eg, control over pace of play, enforcement of rules), control and superintendence, system of care and control over conduct on premises [but note the comments of the Court in Buttita (slip on golf course arising from static condition - distinguishable from cases other than risks arising from static condition)]: 

-> Eg, "The Court noted that the issue of liability was not concerned simply with an occupier's liability for hazards associated with the static condition of the premises. That was because the appellant was on the respondent's premises for a ‘mutual commercial purpose’ and was required to conform to certain systems and procedures established by the respondent. While it was not disputed that the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care, there was disagreement about the appropriate formulation of that duty.[13] On that aspect, the Court relevantly observed:[14] The status of the respondent as occupier of the land on which the appellant was injured was one aspect of the relationship that gave rise to a duty of care. It gave the respondent a measure of control that is regarded by the law as important in identifying the existence and nature of a duty of care. There was, however, more to the relationship than that, and, as was agreed on both sides, the problem was not one that concerned only the physical condition of the respondent's premises… The purpose for which, and the circumstances in which, the appellant was on the respondent's land, constituted a significant aspect of the relationship between them.  The appellant, in the pursuit of her own business, was delivering goods to the respondent for the purpose of sale in the course of the respondent's business.  To do that, she was required to conform to a delivery system established by the respondent… Since the respondent established the system to which the appellant was required to conform, the respondent's duty covered not only the static condition of the premises but also the system of delivery… …the respondent established and maintained a system, and its obligation to exercise reasonable care for the safety of people who came onto its premises extended to exercising reasonable care that its system did not expose people who made deliveries to unreasonable risk of physical injury.": Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142, [124] (Crowley J). 

-> Eg, 'One of the fundamental objectives of the law of negligence is the promotion of reasonable conduct that averts foreseeable harm. It is for this reason that it is necessary for the defendant in an action in negligence to be able to exercise a significant measure of control in the legal or practical sense over the relevant risk. [65] In those circumstances, it is the reasonableness of conduct that reconciles the plaintiff’s interest in protection from harm with the defendant’s interest in freedom of action. As a consequence, the plaintiff is denied protection, if the defendant has acted reasonably.': Shoveller v Dak-Wal Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 352, [314] (Rothman J). 

-> "The duty of an occupier to entrants lawfully upon the premises, generally speaking, is concerned with the condition of the premises, but it may extend further. In Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; 221 CLR 234 at [24] a unanimous court said: The status of the respondent as occupier of the land on which the appellant was injured was one aspect of the relationship that gave rise to a duty of care. It gave the respondent a measure of control that is regarded by the law as important in identifying the existence and nature of a duty of care. There was, however, more to the relationship than that, and, as was agreed on both sides, the problem was not one that concerned only the physical condition of the respondent's premises. There was a time when the common law sought to define with precision the duty of care owed by an occupier of land, and treated the content of the duty as variable according to categories fixed by reference to the status of entrants. The common law has since rejected the approach of seeking to construct a series of special duties by reference to different categories of entrant. The problems involved in the former approach included the rigidity of the classification of entrants, and the artificiality of distinguishing between the static condition of premises and activities conducted on the premises. That is not to say, however, that the law now disregards any aspect of the relationship between the parties other than that of occupier and entrant. On the contrary, other aspects of the relationship may be important, as considerations relevant to a judgment about what reasonableness requires of a defendant, a judgment usually made in the context of deciding breach of duty (negligence).": Hennessy v Patrick Stevedores Operations & Anor [2014] NSWSC 1716, [65] (Campbell J), citing Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; See also, Takacs v The Uniting Church [2007] NSWSC 175, [109]. 

->** "Mr Burton's concession that he owed a duty of care to Mr Brooks was in my view well-founded. As Mr Burton was the occupier of the premises upon which the accident occurred and Mr Brooks was a lawful entrant, Mr Burton owed Mr Brooks a duty to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury ( Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479 at 488). However, as in Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; (2005) 221 CLR 234, Mr Burton's status as the occupier of the property was only one aspect of his relationship with Mr Brooks (see [24]). Mr Brooks was on the property for the purpose of assisting Mr Burton to undertake an activity that was for Mr Burton's benefit and, as the primary judge held, "the job was done ... the way the defendant [Mr Burton] wanted to do it. The plaintiff was simply helping" (Judgment p 7 quoted in [20] above). As the organiser of an activity involving a risk of injury to those engaged in it Mr Burton was "under a duty to use reasonable care in organising the activity to avoid or minimise that risk" ( Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1 at [20]; see also Thompson v Woolworths at [26] - [27]). The fact that Mr Brooks was not paid for his assistance did not lessen the duty that Mr Burton owed to him. Mr Burton's organisation of the activity indicated that he had a measure of control over what occurred. The control that he derived from this organisation supplemented that which arose out of his ownership and occupation of the property. Control is important "in identifying the evidence and nature of a duty of care" ( Thompson v Woolworths at [24]) both in occupier's liability cases (ibid) and in other contexts ( Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552 at [16], [21], [81]; Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; (2002) 211 CLR 540 at [149] - [150]). For the purposes of resolving Mr Brooks' claim it is helpful to define Mr Burton's duty in more specific terms than those of these general formulations. Mr Burton submitted that the primary judge's purported formulation of Mr Burton's duty was, to use the expression that Gummow J used in Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 422, "devoid of meaningful content" (at [73]). This submission must be accepted as the purported formulation did not in fact identify the content of the duty.": Burton v Brooks [2021] NSWCA 175, [21]-[23] (McFarlane JA).

> Query, whether club has a duty to maintain a system regulating pace of play on the course, duty to maintain and enforce course etiquette, duty to warn and inform.

-> eg, see 'Ettiquette' (Metropolitan Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.metropolitangolf.com.au/cms/golf/rules-etiquette/playing-guidelines/>, archived at <https://archive.md/F76P6>: "... 9. Following players MUST be called through if you fall one hole behind the group in front. 10. Call following players through if they are waiting and you ball is not immediately found. You may search for your ball for 3 minutes. Players who call through another match should not resume play until the players called through are safely out of range. ..."

-> 'Etiquette' (Golf Australia, Webpage) <https://www.golf.org.au/etiquette/>: "There are three factors which influence the Pace of Play: The management of play, The course design and set-up, The players".

-> See discussion of pace of play and calling through Etiqutte, above, [A.1]. 

> See also discussion of Course Routing below (Golf Course Design), R&A Pace of Play Manual (2021) ch 2 - 'Management Practices'. 

• Leslie Childs, 'Club may be held liable for unenforced safety rules' (1934) 8(6) Golfdom: The Business Journal of Golf 26 <http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/1934jun28.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/L7JG-YGZ5>. 

• Integrated resorts - Malaysia - 

> lots - security - duty of care to prevent unauthorized entry - breach - robbery: Dynaura Mutiara Sdn Bhd v Ng Chooi Foong [2010] MLJU 1586. 

> ?nuisance - refusal by developer to supply water: Dr Christian Jurgen Kaul & Anor v Meru Valley Resort Bhd [2014] 9 MLJ 539; see also, Leisure Farm Corporation v Chow Tat Chow & Anor [2019] MLJU 1349, [45] et seq.

• See also, Golf Course Design Standards - Guidelines, below. 

• Rule-making body - liability?: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41. See also, ", the principle in Agar v. Hyde that rule-makers of sport may lawfully sit on their hands regarding safety-promoting rule changes because the sport's inherent risks are the responsibility of participants is too wide and an inappropriate charter": Hayden Opie, 'The Sport Administrator's Charter: Agar v Hyde' (2002) 12 Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law 199, 225 <https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1387&context=sports_entertainment>.

> See also, Vowles v Evans [2003] 1 WLR 1607, CA, discussing Agar v Hyde: "Rugby football is an inherently dangerous sport. Some of the rules are specifically designed to minimise the inherent dangers. Players are dependent for their safety on the due enforcement of the rules. The role of the referee is to enforce the rules. Where a referee undertakes to perform that role, it seems to us manifestly fair, just and reasonable that the players 1618should be entitled to rely upon the referee to exercise reasonable care in so doing. Rarely if ever does the law absolve from any obligation of care a person whose acts or omissions are manifestly capable of causing physical harm to others in a structured relationship into which they have entered. Mr Leighton Williams has failed to persuade us that there are good reasons for treating rugby football as an exceptional case. A referee of a game of rugby football owes a duty of care to the players. ... The contemporary evidence in Mr Evans's reports does not suggest that he satisfied himself that Christopher Jones was suitably trained/experienced to be tried in the front row, whatever the precise nature of that training/experience might be. On the contrary, that evidence indicates that Mr Evans left it to the Llanharan captain to elect whether to proceed with non-contestable scrummages or to try out his flanker as a front row prop. On no reading of the law was it proper to offer him that option. We consider that the judge rightly found that Mr Evans abdicated the responsibility which was his of deciding whether the situation had been reached where it was mandatory to insist upon non-contestable scrummages. This constituted a breach of his duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the players. ...  Mr Leighton Williams suggested that, if we upheld the judge's finding that an amateur referee owed a duty of care to the players under his charge, volunteers would no longer be prepared to serve as referees. We do not believe that this result will, or should, follow. Liability has been established in this case because the injury resulted from a failure to implement a law designed to minimise the risk of just the kind of accident which subsequently occurred. We believe that such a failure is itself likely to be very rare. Much rarer will be the case where there are grounds for alleging that it has caused a serious injury. Serious injuries are happily rare, but they are an inherent risk of the game. That risk is one which those who play rugby believe is worth taking, having regard to the satisfaction that they get from the game. We would not expect the much more remote risk of facing a claim in negligence to discourage those who take their pleasure in the game by acting as referees.".

• Sports Law, Tribunals, Disciplicary: 

> Chris Davies, 'Natural Justice and Sport: Petersen v Proserpine Golf Club' (2019)  25 James Cook University Law Review 85 <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2019/6.pdf>.

> Mark Lebbon, 'Tribunals and Disciplinary Proceedings' (Kelly & Co Lawyers, 2013) <https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/00014661-source.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/P7SA-HQBH>. 

• Eg, warning of hazads and risks of wayward balls on specific holes: 'Health & Safety of Players – Hazards & Risks' (Akaroa Golf Club, Webpage) <https://akaroagolf.co.nz/health-safety-statement/>, archived at <https://archive.is/ck7VK>: "The Akaroa Golf Club takes its Health & Safety obligations seriously. Due to its unique and stunning natural features, the course has many potential risk hazards to be aware of While enjoying the views, always be mindful of the potential risks – slippery steep slopes, narrow bridges, and wayward flying golf balls. On some fairways players are unsighted from oncoming golf balls, particularly over rises or from behind trees. If you or your partner hit a wayward ball warn unwary players by shouting “FORE” loudly and promptly. Players hit by flying golf balls cause death and serious injuries around the world. The Tees of the 14th & 17th holes are vulnerable to wayward balls from both directions. Please use the screen for protection. The steep slopes on holes 3, 4 and 14 require special care and attention especially when wet. Motorised Golf Carts must remain on the cart paths on holes 3 & 4 at all times. Operate carts in a safe responsible manner. Retrieving golf balls from creeks is hazardous and dangerous. Golf balls are cheap compared to falls and injuries. Balls hit out-of-bounds into neighbouring property should be reported to the office. ..."

• History of accidents on tee - golf club gave notice of risks/dangers - appeal dismissed - club took reasonable steps to address danger - golfer failed to give priority to group in breach of rules of the club: "... The reality of this case is twofold. Firstly, the judge was right to find that there had been only two proven incidents before the plaintiff's accident at this part of the course in the previous 16 years, with upwards of 800,000 rounds of golf being played from this tee. Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 provides by subsection (2): "A common duty of care is a duty to take such care that in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor would be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there." The "circumstances of the case", includes the overwhelming number of times that the 6th green and the 9th tee have been safely negotiated since 1976. Mr Feeney has done his best to construct an imaginative case based on the experiences of a limited number of Burnham Golf Club players, that the judge should not have speculated as to the number of other incidents that might have occurred or, indeed, as to how they might have occurred: each incident on a golf course can happen in a particular way and may involve a want of care and direction of shot varying infinitely from occasion to occasion; it would have been improper for the judge to speculate on the number of incidents and he was right not to do so. Mr Feeney was critical of the club for not having an Accident Book until 1990. He was then critical of the club for not putting any incidents into the Accident Book, except the plaintiff's own accident in April 1992. The first defendant really cannot have it both ways: the fact that there are no reported accidents in the golf club's own Accident Book over the four years preceding his accident is strongly supportive of the plaintiff's case that there were here very few incidents and those not involving personal injury with an enormous number of rounds of golf played. The committee of this club had taken safety measures: they erected the screen and put up the notice giving priority. With great respect, again, to Mr Feeney, his submissions in relation to the priority system falling into disuse are ill-founded; the notice was there, it was clear in its terms, it was visible. It was in fact what at least one of, if not all the experts had called for, a system of priority. The evidence that this had fallen into disuse is flimsy in the extreme. There was, in truth, on the evidence, up to the time of the plaintiff's accident no call for further precautions. There is a limit in reasonableness to the number of steps a golf club can take to protect players. It is not reasonable to require a golf club to erect a sign to tell a golfer that he must not aim a drive at a person standing or walking 25 yards away from him who is in plain view. That is the second reality of this case, that the plaintiff's injury was caused, and solely caused, by the incomprehensible and wholly unexpected action of the first defendant in driving when the plaintiff was so close on the line of his drive. It is an elementary precaution for a golfer driving to look just before he commences his swing to see if anyone is in, or is moving into a dangerous position. The first defendant was so intent on playing his shot and, for some reason, playing it quickly, that he simply did not look and on his own evidence was not aware of the presence of the plaintiff until after his ball had struck him. No steps could, in my judgment, have been taken by the golf club to prevent folly of this kind. There was in my judgment no duty on the club to extend the screen or to alter any sign at this hole. It is unlikely that if either step had been taken it would have prevented this accident. It is to be observed that after the accident the new sign to which I referred was put up. In my judgment, the evidence up to the date of the accident showed that there was nothing else this club could do in the state of its knowledge as to this part of the course. I have carefully considered all Mr Feeney's submissions and, attractively presented though they have been, they fail. This appeal, in my judgment, should be dismissed. ...": Horton v Jackson [1996] 2 WLUK 467 (westlaw); 1996 WL 1090845.

[E] Golf Cart Incidents - Liability

• See, Kingswood Golf Club Ltd v Smith [2005] VSCA 224, [34].

> Phillip Cullen, 'Long career ends on the ladies' tee: $300,000 for golf cart crash' (Herald Sun, 11 June 2004) 9 <https://www.galballyobryan.com.au/sites/default/files/inline-files/NO-02.pdf>. 

> See also, Smith v Kingswood Golf Club [2004] VCC 9. 

• 'Golf Cart-related Injury' (Monash University Injury Research Institute, August 2012) <https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/218542/golf-cart.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/7QTL-N5UN>. 

• NSW: Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 (NSW) reg 55A.

• SA: Motor Vehicles Regulations 2010 (SA) r 8 -- Exemption from registration and insurance for golf carts and mopeds.

• Kyongmin Lee, 'Court Decisions Regarding Golf-related Injuries: A Quantitative Content Analysis and Binary Logistic Regression' (PhD Thesis, University of New Mexico, December 2014) <https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1026&context=educ_hess_etds>. 

• Hattenfels v Richards Panel Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 213 <https://jade.io/article/929894>. 

> See also, Kace O'Neill, 'Golf carts and kangaroo crashes: Who’s to blame when a worker gets injured at a Christmas party?' (HR Leader, 20 December 2024) <https://www.hrleader.com.au/business/26333-golf-carts-and-kangaroo-crashes-who-s-to-blame-when-a-worker-gets-injured-at-a-christmas-party>, archived at <https://archive.is/Hhm8j>. 

• What qualifies as a golf cart: Motor Vehicle Standards (Road Vehicles) Determination 2017 (Cth) (repealed) r 5; Road Vehicle Standards (Classes of Vehicles that are not Road Vehicles) Determination 2021 (Cth) r 5. 

• Unregistered golf buggy, collision on golf course, Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 NSW: AAB v AAI Limited [2021] NSWPIC 44.

• Queensland Government, 'Safe Operating Procedure - Golf Buggy' (Department of Education, October 2019) <https://education.qld.gov.au/initiativesstrategies/Documents/sop-golf-buggy.docx>. 

• Kyle Gibson et al, 'Adult golf cart injuries: A rising hazard off the course' (2023) 24(4) Traffic Injury Prevention 352 <https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2023.2188986>. 

• Daniel S Watson et al, 'Golf Cart–Related Injuries in the U.S' (2008) 35(1) American Journal of Preventive Medicine 55 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379708003164>. 

• Douglas Lau et al, 'Measures to prevent golf cart–related injuries are urgently needed' (2024) CMAJ 196:E1151-2 <https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/196/33/E1151.full.pdf>. 

• 'Golf Buggy Accident' (Injury Lawyers Queensland, Webpage) <https://www.injurylawyersqueensland.com.au/accident/golf-buggy-accident/>, archived at <https://archive.is/RnfUP>. 

• 'Law of Negligence in Sport Injury Compensation' (Personal Injury Lawyers Brisbane, Webpage) <https://personalinjurieslawyersbrisbane.com.au/personal-injury/workers-compensation/law-of-negligence-in-sport-injury-compensation/>, archived at <https://archive.md/dfnGi>. -- citing Ollier. 

• ** 'Damage to Vehicles or Surrounding Properties – Did you know?' (Glenelg Golf Club, 28 May 2024) <https://www.glenelggolf.com/cms/2024/05/damage-to-vehicles-or-surrounding-properties-did-you-know/>, archived at <https://archive.is/aXfDN>: "Members are reminded, that all membership categories include “Players Personal Liability Insurance” This means that if your golf ball accidently damages a neighbouring property or vehicle, or a car in the carpark, your membership insurance will cover all repairs with no cost to you. To process any claims, all the Club requires is the name of the player who hit the ball. Without this we are unable to process any claims and we are unable to compensate owners for any damage. We ask all Members, that if you hit a ball out of bounds or into one of the Club carparks, whether you are aware of any damage or not, that you report this to either the pro shop or administration at the completion of your round. That way we can ensure the Players Personal Liability Insurance will cover any damage that might be reported to the Club. Remember, this is at no cost to you, insurance will cover all repairs! ...".

• 'Golf Course Tree Safety' (Bayside Treeworks, Webpage) <https://baysidetreeworks.com.au/commercial-tree-removal/golf-courses/>, archived at <https://archive.md/esUBF>. 

[F] Golf Australia - Players Personal Liability Insurance

'Players Personal Liability Insurance' (Golf Australia): <https://www.golf.org.au/financial-insurance/>, archived at <https://archive.is/DNhKU> (accessed 22/12/24): "Golf Australia maintains a Player’s Personal Liability Insurance Policy for all members of affiliated golf clubs. Broadly this policy covers the legal liability of your members to pay compensation for personal injury or property damage which occurs while playing or practising golf or attending a golf event or venue as a player, guest or spectator. See the attachments below for more details and for the claim form. Once completed, the claim for should be sent directly to Sportscover by email to asiapac.claims@sportscover.com The cover is provided up to a limit of $20 million.":

• Sportscover: <https://portal.sportscovergolf.com/>, archived at <https://archive.is/31dab>; about: <https://portal.sportscovergolf.com/about/>, archived at <https://archive.md/5tjzL>; contact: <https://portal.sportscovergolf.com/contact/>, archived at <https://archive.md/d86cL>. 

• Golf Australia Affiliated Clubs: <https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/1adjNV49LucVryqIpci2eN/374005fc867a9d99716f961a3159f86b/GA_Affiliated_clubs_online.pdf> (Sept 2024), archived at <https://perma.cc/J2H2-9BAP>.  -- appears to provide cover to GA Affiliated club members. 

• 07/2022 - 07/2023: Policy Schedule: <https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/2FcpAoGvSvI0UNAn8vV5Em/7c5a1295b875495d1739b6866ddfb3ff/GOLF_AUSTRALIA_LTD_-_Schedule.pdf> archived at <https://perma.cc/ZYC6-8DDH>; Wording: <https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/6QoP4IZ4QJ6idawjIIKTDP/ee1354db6f5d6621213a8978dee8a40d/Sportscover_Golf_Personal_Liability_Policy_Wording_07.21.pdf> archived at <https://perma.cc/QQJ2-R2YZ>. 

•  07/2024 - 07/2025: Policy Schedule: <https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/4MiDM3V5epzMZ48v6JrWLe/41bfdd5aac319929220daef37c4be0e1/GOLF_AUSTRALIA_LTD__-_COC.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/RZ4G-A45B>; 2021 Wording: <https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Sportscover_Golf_Personal_Liability_Policy_Wording_07.21.pdf> archived at <https://perma.cc/V6KE-BYHF>; 2024 Wording: <https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/6Bf7GFanh6l4OJalmVMsbF/e71d42bbbd94d83d2ef70d5755332ca1/Combined_Liability_Policy_Wording_05.24.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/M8KB-V9H9>; Claim form: <https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GolfAus_Liability_Accident_Claim_Form_14022022_Editable-1.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/UFZ4-BKDB>; GA Website indicates new policy wording w.e.f 1/3/2025, which appears to exclude cover for liability arising in connection with golf carts.

• 19 December 2024 Players Personal Liability FAQ: <https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/6t4U6UGDqHWGqwaa0JHZuO/2ef207646116edf68535c33803a3c582/FAQ_Players_Personal_Liability_Insurance__Golfers_FINAL_19.12.2024.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/ASL2-ZH6X>; See also, <https://www.burleighgolfclub.com.au/cms/2024/12/changes-to-players-personal-liability-insurance-policy/>, archived at <https://archive.is/9oLun>. 

> see also, 'Insurance & Liability when playing golf at Howlong Country Golf Club' (Brochure) <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a20b2de2278e7f62176f629/t/5e8d5757813db05894fcc0d2/1586321244306/Insurance+%26+Liability.pdf>. 

> See example of golf course disclaimer, risk warning and exclusion of liability: <https://www.richriver.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Disclaimer.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/EJU6-AK6K>. 

• Requirement to Claim against - responsible golfer's name - see Glenelg Golf Club:  'Damage to Vehicles or Surrounding Properties – Did you know?' (Glenelg Golf Club, 28 May 2024) <https://www.glenelggolf.com/cms/2024/05/damage-to-vehicles-or-surrounding-properties-did-you-know/>, archived at <https://archive.is/aXfDN>: "Members are reminded, that all membership categories include “Players Personal Liability Insurance” This means that if your golf ball accidently damages a neighbouring property or vehicle, or a car in the carpark, your membership insurance will cover all repairs with no cost to you. To process any claims, all the Club requires is the name of the player who hit the ball. Without this we are unable to process any claims and we are unable to compensate owners for any damage. We ask all Members, that if you hit a ball out of bounds or into one of the Club carparks, whether you are aware of any damage or not, that you report this to either the pro shop or administration at the completion of your round. That way we can ensure the Players Personal Liability Insurance will cover any damage that might be reported to the Club. Remember, this is at no cost to you, insurance will cover all repairs! ...". 

[F.1] Green Fee Players - Liability Insurance

• Non-members of GA-affiliated clubs. Not covered by GA's Players Liability Insurance: eg, see <https://www.australiangolfdigest.com.au/golf-australia-announces-important-changes-to-players-personal-liability-insurance/>. 

• Green Fee Players = Social Golfers (Golf NSW): "Social golfers in an organised golf activity but not registered with an affiliated golf organisation, sourced from Ausplay data (Organised venue/activity participants).": 'The Community Impact of Golf in NSW' (Presentation) <https://www.golfnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Golf-in-NSW-Community-Impact-Study-Final49.pdf>. 

• May be covered by golf course's insurance (as part of the green fees). Eg, SportsCover Green Fee Players Insurance: <https://portal.sportscovergolf.com/cover/player-liability/pay-per-play/>, archived at <https://archive.md/8dHdx>. 

> See eg, "... at keperra on the par 5 11th .. was the 2nd back then.. hooked the ball through a neighbouring house kitchen window and landed in the sink as the wife was doing dishes... husband came out and asked if it was my ball.. he didn't seem overly concerned...just asked for my name and said that when you pay your green fees you are covered by insurance.. ": OzGolf.net Forum (Webpage, 24 May 2012) <https://www.ozgolf.net/showthread.php/28937-Damage-Liability>, archived at <https://archive.is/IKB4U>. 

> 'Damage to a Resident’s lot caused by golfing activities' (Sands Golf Club Torquay, 2020) <https://thesandscommunity.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/damage_golfing-activities.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/WH7A-RTMP>: "... If the person who hit the ball acknowledges the incident, but is NOT a member of any golf club affiliated with Golf Australia – then that person and the lot holder, through mutual negotiation, will need to come to an agreement on how to resolve the issue. C. If the person who hit the ball does not acknowledge the incident – that is, if we are not able to determine who caused the damage the lot owner will need to rely on their own personal home and contents insurance. ...For lot owners, it is strongly suggested that your Home & Contents Insurance covers such damage. It is further suggested that your excess is set relatively low (perhaps $300.00) to cover most of the small issues caused by golfing activities. Walden Cloud, as the owner of the course, has Public Liability insurance that has a Participants Exclusion clause which rules out any damage/injury caused by any players while on the golf course (this is covered by the individual golfer’s membership – as outlined previously). So, there is no recourse between the lot owner’s insurance and the Sands Golf Club. Walden Cloud is only liable if the damage/injury is caused by our negligence – for example, if a tree on the fairway falls and injures a player or a lot owner, then there is recourse through our insurance. ". -- may also potentially escalate into a body corporate dispute. 

[F.2] Golf Course Insurance - Club Insurance

• Leo Ronken, 'Golf Clubs and Golf Courses – Underestimated Risks?' (General Reinsurance AG, 2024) <https://www.genre.com/content/dam/generalreinsuranceprogram/documents/pmint24-1-en.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/QWR4-GDQ8>. 

> See also, (General Reinsurance AG, 2024) <https://www.genre.com/us/knowledge/publications/2024/january/pmint24-1-en>, archived at <https://archive.is/0svAO>. 

[G] Expert Evidence - Risk Assessments

• Sun City Country Club Inc and City of Wanneroo [2018] WASAT 19, [31]-[35] (Jordan M): "31 Mr Mitchell also said that a concern of the applicant was that the requirements of its insurers be satisfied. He referred to advice from Nexus Risk Services of 6 October 2017 provided in the applicant's supplementary bundle of documents attaching an email from Sportscover dated 6 December 2016, both dates after which the 2.1 metre high fence had been erected. Sportscover refers to a report by Venue Rating Agency Pty Ltd assessing risk at the golf course. Sportscover ask that the fence be 2.1 metres high to stop kangaroos and deter potential malicious damage such as graffiti. The attached Venue Rating Agency report attached to the Sportscover email dated 6 December 2016 is dated May 2016, before the 2.1 metre high fence was erected and the assessment was that the then existing perimeter security fence was in 'good condition' in one part of the assessment and in 'excellent' condition in another. Safety as relating to neighbouring properties and passers­by was assessed as 'good'. 32 The applicant also produced a letter from Southern Wire, a firm that supplies and erects security fences dated 29 April 2016. Southern Wire commented on drains and ease of scaling the 1.1 metre high fence and recommended a 2.1 metre high chain mesh fence with three strands of barbed wire to preclude access. 33 Attached to the copy of the application for planning consent within the respondent's bundle of documents was a copy of the wording of the applicant's insurance policy 'Industrial Special Risk ­ Golf Club ISR Policy Wording' prepared by Australian Golf Insurance. As stated by Counsel for the respondent, the policy does not refer to 2.1 metre high or any fencing. No witnesses were called from either Nexus, Sportscover, Australian Golf Insurance or Venue Rating Agency Pty Ltd that could assist the Tribunal by explaining what appear to be contradictions, or silence, in relation to fences and risk, depending upon date and author. The Tribunal would add that it is an objective of TPS 2 at cl 1.6(f) to promote development that has a high level of amenity and safety. The content of insurance policies is not a determinative factor in planning matters, although they may help inform considerations of safety. Such considerations are also influenced however by context, amenity and impact on neighbours. The Tribunal has not been convinced that advice from insurance brokers that the applicant erect a certain type of fence should be given any greater weight than the other matters it is necessary to consider when determining the planning merit of a development proposal. 34 Another reference by the applicant was to a report by Michael Coate Golf Design that conducted a safety audit in November 2010. The course was apparently built using a masterplan based on a design (which was not filed with the Tribunal) prepared in 2006 by firm Ogilvy Clayton. Mr Graham said the masterplan recommended a setback of 50 metres. The Michael Coate report says there is no universally accepted standard for fairway setback from a boundary but it recommends 50 metres from the centreline of the fairway. Mr Mitchell said the boundary at 27 Parkland Drive was set back 43 metres and at 13 Parkland Drive 38 metres. The Michael Coate report recommended removing trees and relocating the fairway to the west, but Mr Mitchell said the applicant was not in a position to relocate the fairways and he considered it had to take other precautions to ensure safety. 35 In respect to the setback between the boundary and the fairways, the Tribunal would comment that, other than reference to two lots not meeting the required minimum, there was no evidence led that examined the need for protection from potential impact from golf balls from the fairway adjacent to Parkland Drive houses. It was noted in the Michael Coates report that factors such as topography, distance and vegetation were relevant, as was likely ball trajectory, a predominance of right hand players and prevailing winds. There was no analysis of these factors particular to the circumstances, other than the comment that a 50 metre setback would be desirable to avoid any problems. The Tribunal was not satisfied that these two houses being set back less than 50 metres is sufficient to warrant the construction of some 500 metres of fence."

> Specific expert evidence needed to address need for fencing, with reference to safety issues, trajectories, etc. 

• "Golf Course Safety Lyne Morrison Golf Design can provide assessment and advice on appropriate course safety conditions to help mitigate conflict from errant golf balls.": 'Setting up for Success' (Lyne Morrison Golf Design, Webpage) <https://lynemorrisongolfdesign.com/designapproach/setting-upforsuccess>, archived at <https://archive.is/M72cz>. -- Australia

• 'Sport - Golf Experts' (Expert Experts, Webpage) <https://expertexperts.com.au/experts/field-of-expertise/sport-golf>. 

• 'Golf Expert Analysis' (Golf Expert Consulting, Webpage) <https://www.golfexpertconsulting.com/golf-expert-analysis.html>. 

• NZ: 'Golf drives a hard bargain' (Sedgwick, 9 August 2022) <https://www.sedgwick.com/blog/golf-drives-a-hard-bargain/?loc=au-nz>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250101100504/https://www.sedgwick.com/blog/golf-drives-a-hard-bargain/?loc=au-nz>: "The driving range covered around 4/5,000 square metres and was floodlit, enabling play for around 12 hours a day. The company had resource consent with special permission for floodlighting, although the business was not allowed to operate beyond 10pm. A 20-metre-high fence had been installed to prevent golf balls from entering the boundary into surrounding residential areas. The fence measurement appeared to have adequate coverage.The nearest neighbouring properties belonged to a retirement village. They had previously approached the owner to purchase the driving range — which the owner turned down. Not long afterwards, the retirement village began claiming that golf balls were flying over the fence and had broken windows on some nearby properties. The management team subsequently changed all the golf balls to a low compression model, which doesn’t travel quite so far. However, the reports of breakages continued. The driving range owner became suspicious, and when he discovered the retirement village was taking their case to the environmental court, he decided to fight his corner. His lawyer approached EFI Global for technical support. We were asked to investigate the feasibility of golf balls hit by players on the driving range going over the boundary fencing and damaging nearby properties in the neighbouring retirement village. ..."

• 'Golf Expert Testimony' (Probable Golf Instruction, Webpage) <https://probablegolfinstruction.com/Expert_Golf_Consultant.htm>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20240421165841/https://probablegolfinstruction.com/Expert_Golf_Consultant.htm>: "• Errant Golf Ball Trajectories • Golf Netting Safety Height • Topographic Errant Ball Analysis • Adjoining Property Errant Golf Ball Safety Determination • any litigation involving golf club and ball interactions ...".

• 'Golf Expert Witness – Trevor Homer' (Webpage) <http://www.golfexpertwitness.co.uk/>.

> See also, 'Sale golfer struck in eye by ball on Scottish course wins £400k damages' (Manchester Evening News, 4 November 2011) <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/sale-golfer-struck-in-eye-by-ball-875113>: " ... During the case expert evidence was led from former British amateur champion and Walker Cup player Trevor Homer. Mr Gordon said he had never struck a bad shot known as a "duck hook" - a badly hit drive which veered violently to the left. Mr Homer was of the opinion that all golfers would have struck such a shot at some stage of playing. He maintained that Mr Gordon should not have struck his tee shot until Mr Phee and his playing companions had cleared the seventh tee."

• 'List of every expert witness claiming expertise in Sports' (Dr Chris Pamplin's UK Register of Expert Witnesses, Webpage) <https://www.jspubs.com/expert-witness/si/s/sports/>. 

• 'Design of Golf Courses' appears to be a recognised area of expertise, Planning & Environment Court, Qld: Timothy Trotter, 'How to be a Court Expert' (Paper, PIA Seminar Series, September 2011) <https://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/4787>. 

• Richard Chamberlain: O’Brien & Anor  v Hillcrown Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 173.

• US: Michael S Johnstone <https://www.johnstonearch.com/expert-witness/>, archived at <https://archive.is/goIL7>. 

[H] Golf Course Design Standards - Guidelines

Expert Evidence on 'standards' in Australian case law, etc.

• 60m setback line: Andersen v Tamworth Regional Council [2019] NSWLEC 1580, [59]-[61] -- see above discussion in Nuisance.

• 70m buffer - realigment of tee and fairway - fencing - buffer land - see discussion within: 'Confidential potential purchase of land – adjacent to the Willunga golf course' (City of Onkaparinga, South Australia, 7 June 2011) <https://www.onkaparingacity.com/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/released-confidentials/7-june-2011-item-11.1-agenda-released-confidential.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5JEV-PKN4>.

• Planning - 15m envelopes from boundary of golf course: "10. There were a number of other issues discussed during the course of the hearing, which while not being decisive, are worthy of some comment: ... - The subject land adjoins a golf course, and therefore there is a risk to future residents arising from errant golf balls. The Applicant submits that while it should not be entirely its responsibility to ameliorate this risk given that the golf course is located within the township boundary, it is nevertheless prepared to agree to building envelopes on the subject lots setting buildings back at least 15 metres from the boundary of the golf course, and to fund the construction of a safety fence adjacent to the sixth tee. - The council remain concerned about balls overshooting the third green, it was the Applicant’s response that the proposed fencing and setback distances should be sufficient in that particular case.  It seems to me that the Applicant has adopted a reasonable approach, and it would not be unreasonable to expect the golf course to reconsider the risks associated with its activities, consequent upon the redevelopment of the subject land and to perhaps strengthen boundary planting or take whatever other measures seem appropriate. 11. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit issued.": ZFN Management Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges Shire Council [2005] VCAT 1730.

• Planning - 50m setback: Sun City Country Club Inc and City of Wanneroo [2018] WASAT 19, [31]-[35] (Jordan M): "3: "Mr Graham said the masterplan recommended a setback of 50 metres. The Michael Coate report says there is no universally accepted standard for fairway setback from a boundary but it recommends 50 metres from the centreline of the fairway". 

• Linfox Property Group Inc v Bass Coast SC [2008] VCAT 642, [96]-[97] et seq -- errant golf balls effect on environment - fossicking of errant golf balls.

• Planning - setback - boundary - fence adjoining residence: Lambis v Mornington Peninsula SC [2009] VCAT 21.

• Planning - 18m high barrier: "... 70. Other matters that submitters identified as important included safety of future residents of this site from golf balls and protection of the river bank. 71. The issue of protecting future residents from golf balls had been the subject of expert evidence at the earlier review. Evidence had been provided by Mr. R. Baird, consulting engineer with expertise in the design of golf courses. Mr. Baird had concluded that it would be possible for misdirected balls from the Heidelberg Golf Course’s fourth tee or the related fairway to cross the boundary of lot 2A. His evidence concluded that a protective barrier should be provided, most appropriately constructed of “pole and net system” with the following characteristics: My recommendation for the layout of a barrier … is that it should commence on the western boundary rising to a peak height of 18m over a length of 20m and then to fall to 8m over the entire length, 100m approx, of the southern boundary. 72. No party contested the credibility of Mr. Baird’s evidence or conclusions, but limited submissions to raising questions about, or criticising, the appearance of such a barrier. 73. Mr. Hooper submitted that the permit applicant was prepared to provide such a barrier and to also provide additional planting along the Golf Course’s side of the barrier, so that its appearance would be substantially diminished.  Mr. Cicero and Mr. Hooper each provided a draft of a condition requiring construction of such a barrier, that proposed by Mr. Hooper being based on the recommendation of Mr. Baird and including a specific requirement as to landscaping. 74. We conclude that, in the circumstances of the uncontested evidence provided at the earlier hearing by Mr. Baird, such a barrier should be provided and that additional landscaping should be included.  This would assist in screening the barrier in the longer-term and would add further to the vegetated character of the site’s locality.  Mr. Hooper’s suggested condition appears appropriate.": Loudi Pty Ltd v Banyule CC [2007] VCAT 35; See also, Loudi Pty Ltd v Banyule CC [2007] VCAT 1282, aff'd. reference to "Certificate of Compliance a Landscape Plan". 

• ** Dyson v Baw Baw Shire Council [2005] VCAT 2008 -- confirms that the onus is on the golf club to ensure design safety vis-a-cis errant and wayward golf shots / golf balls. 

• Cranbourne Country Club Inc and Cranbourne Golf Club Inc v Casey City Council [2005] VCAT 1636. 

• Cranbourne Country Club Inc and Cranbourne Golf Club Inc v Casey City Council [2005] VCAT 1605. 

• Greater Geelong C110 (PSA) [2006] PPV 44. 

• Golf Course Redevelopment SAC Part 1 Report (AC) [2019] PPV 63. 

• Maribyrnong C38 & C41 (PSA) [2004] PPV 107.

Industry Research on Safety Standards, Guidelines and Protocols

• "... There are no safety standards for design of a golf facility, so each designer must apply prudent criteria, and then be prepared to defend those criteria if necessary. No golf course can be 100% safe, but experienced members of the American Society of Golf Course Architects can significantly reduce the probability of an accident by recognizing certain guidelines.... ": Michael J Hurdzan, Building a Practical Golf Facility: A Step-by-Step Guide to Realizing a Dream (American Society of Golf Architects, 2005) <https://asgca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Building-a-Practical-Golf-Facility.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/8D5M-RR9V>. 

> See also, Michael J Hurdzan, Golf Course Architecture: Evolutions in Design, Construction, and Restoration Technology (Wiley, 2nd ed, 2005) 25: "As was pointed out in the first edition of this book, there is no such thing as design safety standards for golf courses, only widely accepted rules of thumb that serve as starting points ..." -- see also, routing. 

> *** See also, Jason P Knight, 'Golf & Law' (2021) 66(2) Professional Safety 43 <https://www.proquest.com/openview/8de3aa62f0d6a86f582aa712e93e6802/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47267>, referring to Michael J Hurdzan, GOLF & LAW: Golf Course Safety, Security & Risk Management (Bookbaby, 2018): "As Michael Hurdzan notes early in Golf and Law: Golf Course Safety, Security and Risk Management, golf and lawsuits are inextricably linked. Golf is an excellent sport that is accessible to every age group, but many accompanying dangers are not readily apparent. The author does an excellent job discussing the plethora of dangers that golf course owners and operators must be aware of or face significant legal liability. The author does a great job of simplifying the legal standards and consequences to operators who fail to design a course appropriate to required safety standards. The book explains complex legal concepts in a thorough, understandable way. A key theme throughout is that mitigation of risk, prevention of incidents and recognition of dangers are much more practical alternatives to facing litigation. Of particular note is the chapter on sources of incidents and potential negligence, as safety professionals need to be keenly aware of those hazards. Hurdzan’s explanation of the differences of contributory and comparative negligence is better than most law textbooks, while the cited cases (and jury verdicts) are recent and illustrate how an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of a cure. One of the best aspects of the book are the colorful illustrations and photographs included to help the reader better understand the material. The book presents great examples of signage, threats and diagrams that show the best practices for designing a challenging, fun and, most importantly, safe golf course. Overall, the book targets a fairly niche audience but is a great read for anyone hoping to design, build, or operate a golf course, or who is a lover of the sport. It is short and direct, and the appendix includes many good resources."

-> see also, John Strawn, 'Review of Hurdzan’s Golf and Law' (GCA Partners, 23 February 2020) <https://ggapartners.com/2020/02/review-of-hurdzans-golf-and-law/>.

-> Larry Hirsh, '“Golf & Law” – An ABSOLUTE MUST READ!' (Golf Prop, 12 January 2019) <https://golfprop.com/blog/golf-law-an-absolute-must-read/>. 

-> Larry Hirsh, 'Golf Course/Club Safety – It Matters!' (Golf Business Weekly, 2024) <https://www.ngcoa.org/golf-business-weekly/2024/march/week-1/golf-course-safety>. 

-> 'Tartan Talks No. 30: Dr. Michael Hurdzan (@HurdzanGolf), author of the recently released book “Golf and Law,” discusses how safety, security and risk management affect golf course operations and design' (Golf Course Industry, Video, 28 December 2018) <https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/media/michael-hurdzan-golf-safety/>. 

-> 'Hurdzan, ASGCA, discusses his 7th book, “Golf Law” on “Tartan Talks” podcast' (ASGCA, 9 January 2019) <https://asgca.org/hudzan-asgca-discusses-his-7th-book-golf-law-on-tartan-talks-podcast/>. 

-> 'Dangerous Beauty of Modern Golf Course Design' (Hurdzan Golf, Webpage) <https://www.hurdzangolf.com/books>, archived at <https://archive.is/OBRQT>. 

> See also, case law references: 

-> "At trial, the parties introduced conflicting testimony regarding the design and operation of the course. The golf course architect explained that "there's no building code in golf course architecture, unlike traditional architecture, so designers rely on experience and information from other designers and what is published." He further testified that "the [fifteenth] hole was designed properly within modern design standards." He, like the plaintiffs' expert, referenced and relied on a book by Dr. Michael Hurdzan, setting out a "safety cone" analysis, a method of assessing safe 93*93 distances for a golf course. The architect explained that he used standards that would keep everything 165 feet left of the center line and 185 right of the center line to establish a reasonable safety zone.[5] The architect further explained that these standards were consistent with the safety cone analysis developed by Hurdzan, which defined the safety zone via two rays extending out at a fifteen-degree angle from the tee (centered on the middle of the fairway). Although the house did not exist at the time the architect designed the fifteenth hole, it was built further than 165 feet left of the center line and, thus, according to the architect, within a reasonable safety zone. The plaintiffs' expert, a golf course accident investigator, drew the opposite conclusion, testifying that the house was not within the safety zone, relying on the same research from Hurdzan.[6] The plaintiffs' expert had expanded the cone from fifteen degrees to eighteen degrees, to take into account changes in golf technology in the thirty years since the book was written that increased the length of golf shots and their likely dispersion. The expert further testified that, according to Hurdzan, eighty percent of shots typically fall within the safety cone.": Erik Tenzcar v Indian Pond Country Club, Inc., 491 Mass 89 (2022).

-> "With respect to the design of the Brookside Golf Course, appellants submitted the expert declaration of Michael J. Hurdzan. He declared: The area where Jacobo was hit "is inherently unsafe for cars and pedestrians on or along West Drive because of errant golf balls entering that area." City knew or should have known that there "would be a reasonably high likelihood of golf balls landing in that vicinity. Protection of pedestrians using the [Loop] could have easily been accomplished by good design or remedial measures." "[G]olf course operators should be vigilant to observe any place on or near their golf course where errant golf balls could hit unsuspecting people or property. This is especially true on a highly traveled area such as the [Loop] where the golf holes and probable play areas are so close together. At the 15th hole, the only barrier between the golf fairway and West Drive is a [six foot eight inch] fence and some small and somewhat thin foliage trees that are more of a visual barrier than an effective ball stopping barrier.... The trees are not dense enough to stop golf balls, but being a visual barrier, actually contribute to [a problem] because golfers cannot see pedestrians to warn them, nor can pedestrians see all of the golfers or golf balls that could cause them harm. The trees are not effectual safeguards. The fence is too low to provide adequate protection."": Garcia v. American Golf Corp., 11 Cal. App. 5th 532 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 2017.

> Michael J Hurdzan, 'Golf Course Design and Specifications Related to Maintenance' (1985) Sept/Oct USGA Green Section Record 6 <https://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/?file=/1980s/1985/850906.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/B2NR-5GVF>. 

• *** Golf Australia Guidelines: "... There are no universal safety standards for golf courses. There is however, a generally accepted guideline for the total distance between fairways, which has been the industry norm since the 1960’s. • The guideline outlines the minimum acceptable distance from the middle of a fairway to the middle of an adjacent fairway (or to a boundary). • The measurement is conducted at a driving distance of approximately 230 metres from the tee. • The minimum requirement for this measure is to be no less than 50 metres for any hole. More recently, the desirable distance incorporated into modern design is 60 metres (and some are now moving to 70 metres). The reason there is no universal safety standards in place is that a hard rule would mean some existing courses would be non-compliant, and there are other factors which contribute to the safety of holes. In addition, unique design techniques such as repositioning a tee or the centre of a fairway can improve the safety of a hole and reduce the likelihood of a ball striking another person or damaging another object. Beyond design intervention, netting may also be required to protect the boundary of a hole. The reality is that most courses have a safety issue, and most don’t know how to address it. … Safety Mapping ... 70m offset from green ... 70m offset from centre line at 230m from the tee ... 30m offset from the centre of tee ... ": Golf Australia, Australian Golf Facilities Guidelines (September 2022) <https://downloads.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/5k4zAU92ZnYyenguiNMZqm/4bc4837705ad00cadf507fe49216ffa5/Australian_Golf_Facilities_Guidelines_-_Final_-_September_2022.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/52CG-9S3S>. -- see GA's guidelines for recommended safety specifications; OCM Golf. 

> See also, 'Facility Management & Strategy' (Golf Australia, Webpage) <https://www.golf.org.au/facilitymanagement/>, archived at <https://archive.is/v3wrh>: "The breadth of the golf industry have welcomed the development of the Australian Golf Facilities Guidelines, a dedicated national resource to benchmark, lead and support best practice planning, design, and development of golf facilities and infrastructure. The guidelines provide recommended guiding principles to assist investment and direction for the planning and development of new facilities and redevelopment of existing golf facilities. The first of its kind in Australia and leading the world in its approach, this resource will cater for the diverse needs of a broad range of stakeholders, including Golf Club and Facility Owners, Managers and Operators, PGA Professionals, Club Boards and Committees, Local Government Authorities, State and Territory Governments, Federal Government, and Land and Property Developers. The aim of the guidelines is to transform golf clubs and facilities to be modern, thriving and sustainable community hubs, improve the sustainability and financial viability of clubs and facilities, drive greater diversity and innovation in the planning and development of golf facilities and increase investment into golf infrastructure projects."

> See also, 'Risk Management & Safety' (Golf Australia) <https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/00034967-source.pdf>. 

> On proposition that there are no universal safety standards for golf course design, also see Greater Geelong C110 (PSA) [2006] PPV 44 and Golf Course Redevelopment SAC Part 1 Report (AC) [2019] PPV 63 below for further discussion. 

• "Unlike much of the property development arena, golf course development is not strictly governed by safety legislation. Instead safety disputes are typically reconciled on a case-by-case basis on the strength of judicious argument, which, sometimes, leverages guidelines advocated by various Golfing authorities. Indeed, both Cashmore and Kruse Golf refer to various safety guideline protocols; in particular, those outlined by the Australian Golf Course Architects Society, the European Institute of Golf Course Architects and Golf NSW. We acknowledge the use of the word “guidelines” and emphasise that, in our experience, the interpretation of these guidelines is heavily context dependent. That said we concur with the overarching principle implicit in these guidelines; specifically, that it is near impossible to retain 100% of golf balls within a golf course where they abut residential precincts. Nevertheless, it is something that should be strived for. To this end, we adhere to conventional wisdom and generally aim to ensure minimum setbacks from a green / hole centreline of 55 metres, even though ideally we would deliver greater setbacks if our clients’ financial metrics accommodated this. Setbacks aside, there are a number of other factors that can impinge on the safety of holes located adjacent to residences and we aim, where applicable, to give due weight to each of these in our designs as well. They include: 1. Angle of play relative to adjacent boundary; 2. Elevational differences between golf hole and adjoining properties; 3. Length of hole; 4. Detailed design of the hole / positioning of hazards; 5. Vegetation screen between hole and properties; 6. Prevailing winds; 7. Whether the hole is on the ‘hook’ or ‘slice’ side (for right handers); 8. Variation in teeing location; and 9. Location of safety fences. ...": 'Killara Golf Club - Independent Assessment of Golf Course Safety Measures associated with the proposed 2nd hole at Killara Golf Club, Pacific Highway, Killara' (Golf by Design, NSW Planning, April 2012) <https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20PPS-2011SYW046!20190614T180037.141%20GMT>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5HV4-HHP9>. 

• " ... Golf course and driving range safety is fast becoming a key issue of concern with an increasing number of high value claims from players and course neighbours who are encouraged today to resort to the law for settlement of claims and disputes. Insurance underwriters now look for proof that Clubs and Owners are diligent and careful in the safe management of the course or range. After numerous accidents PGA Design Consulting Ltd have published the Design Guide for Golf Driving Ranges and Safety Guidelines for Golf Courses but accidents continue to happen. It is important for clubs to realise that the committee members, Directors, Golf Professionals and course designers are all targets for the victim's insurers. PGADC has launched a safety audit scheme to help clubs ensure that they stay on the right side of the law.": (2003) March Greenkeeper International  6 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2003mar4a.pdf>. 

• "... There are a few accepted industry standards for the design of golf courses including: Safety – EIGCA Indicative Working Design Criteria for the Laying Out of Golf Courses (only available for EIGCA members to use) and Golf Course Design Safety Guidelines – July 2008 published by PGA Design Consulting Ltd Green Construction – USGA Green Section Recommendations for Putting Green Construction Bunker Sand – Preferred Particle Size Distribution for Bunker Sand produced by Sports Turf Research Institute.": 'Golf course design common questions answered' (Creative Golf Design, Webpage) <https://creativegolfdesign.com/golf-course-design-common-questions-answered>, archived at <https://archive.md/QYlKY>. 

• "... There are two sets of guidelines typically used by golf course architects to assess issues with safety; those issued by the EIGCA and those based on information gathered by the R&A from their study on amateur driving data. The R&A study found that most golf shots fall within an arc of 30 degrees from the aiming point (15⁰ each side of the play line) and this supports the EIGCA guidelines": 'Golf Course Re-development Proposals' (European Golf Design, October 2019) 19 <https://www.galwaygolf.com/uploadedfiles/Galway%20Report_Rev4_GG_Images_LOWRES_1.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/M6LK-TXVN>. 

• Carbone v Leatherstocking Corporation, 2005 WL 3635599 (NDNY) (Expert Report and Affidavit of Michael J Hurdzan, Ph.D, 17 May 2005): "Per your request, I will attempt to clarify the issue of safety guidelines for golf courses. Guidelines are sort of unwritten procedures that most practitioners follow as a matter of common practice that have evolved over time. Even where historic holes exist that do not meet today's safety guidelines, I believe that the golf courses still have a responsibility to protect their guests from known of potential dangers. There is no source book for golf course design safety guidelines only mentoring, observation, and commonsense for they come from thoughtful design experience and analysis. About the only place you will find any written reference to golf course safety guidelines is in my 1996 book, Golf Course Architecture, I write about and rely on a guideline that says 92% of golf shots will fall within fifteen degrees (15°) either side of the apparent centerline of play. But then I say this is simply a starting point and adjustments must be made to allow for topography, wind hazards, altitude, and a whole host of site specific variables that preclude developing “standards” of design. The game of golf has been constantly evolving for the past 150 years and with it golf course design guidelines. In the middle 1800's there were less than 50 “golf courses” in the world. In fact, there were no real golf courses but rather open land where golf was allowed to be played, and then mostly in the winter or cool seasons before the grass grew so high as to cause loss of golf balls. Grazing animals were the greenkeepers. The total number of golfers in the world back then was estimated at only a few thousand, so on any given day only a handful of golfers might use the golfing ground. With the industrial revolution in Europe came more golfers, and soon formal golf courses became established, and some suggested guidelines in the late 1800's. Golf was permanently established in the U.S. around 1888, and formal but crude golf courses appeared in the 1890's. As the number of golfers grew, so did the demand for new golf courses, although golf was mostly a rich man's sport until after the Second World War. Post WWII was when golf began to become a popular game of average folks, and spawned a golf boom that continues today. During this same period from the late 1800's to the mid 1940's, there were also evolutions in the laws regarding legal liabilities, and that evolution and reform continues today Those changes in liability shaped many of the changes in golf courses, for as more people played golf, more accidents occurred and so too, assignment of responsibility. Golf equipment also evolved from feather filled balls and wood shaft clubs of the pre-1850's, to gutta-percha balls with wood shaft clubs from about 1900 to 1930, to steel shaft clubs and wound balls until the 1980's when all sorts of space age materials were used for clubs and balls. Each of these changes in golf equipment technology was driven by the claim to allow golfers to hit the ball further, with a greater margin of forgiveness of a bad swing by their equipment. I play golf with wood shaft clubs perhaps 8-10 times per year, and so I am familiar with their performance characteristics compared to modern clubs, which I play with 20-30 times per year. Even though modern equipment is forgiving enough to allow golfers to swing hard, the ball does not go that much further or off line than when wood shaft clubs are used. Consequently, I am convinced golfers of today are as bad as golfers were 80 or 100 years ago, and so the dispersion of golf shots is not much different either. However, safety guidelines have evolved over that time because of liability issues that make it prudent to spatially protect or separate golfers, golf holes, and adjacent properly. The fact that a golf course is old seems to me to bear no relevance to protecting against foreseeable danger like errant golf balls. In earlier letters, I have repeatedly referred to ball barriers and their ability to protect against errant golf balls. I constructed an artificial green at my office along one property boundary and we hit shots into it from the opposite property line where I built a tee. To guard against errant shots leaving our property I have a ball barrier that I can raise or lower as needed that is 20 feet high and 30 feet long that cost less than $400 to buy and erect. We have clients who have had to erect ball barrier netting as high as 120 feet high, but obviously at substantially higher cost. To protect the proshop at Leatherstocking Golf Course with a ball barri??r I believe would be less than $1,000 and could be as low as $400. Installing shatterproof glass in windows could cost about $200-300 per window, but I have also seen golf courses simply put screens over the windows for about $50 per window. There are also films that can be applied to existing windows that make them shatterproof that cost about $100 or so per window, depending upon the size of window. Seemingly, for as little as a few hundred dollars for screens up to a few thousand dollars for shatterproof glass, the clubhouse and proshop could be protected from errant shots hit on the 18th hole at Leatherstocking Golf Course. It is my professional and expert opinion that a vigilant and prudent operator of Leatherstocking Golf Course should have known the danger posed by shots on the 18th hole landing near the clubhouse/proshop, and could have taken relatively inexpensive steps to protect their guests.": archived at <https://perma.cc/3BN4-HU4M>. 

> likely a reference to the PGA Guidelines (wrt "92%"). 

• *** reproduction of part of Swan Golf Guideline, PGA of Great Britain and Ireland (PGA of England) and EIGCA Guidelines, within: William Swan, 'A Safety Analysis of the Proposed Coastal Path Adjacent to North Shore Golf Club (Swan Golf Designs Limited, 25 November 2016) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81c0a9e5274a2e87dbf4a8/technical-annex-a.PDF>, archived at <https://perma.cc/K34M-BYFG> -- see Appendix p 13-14 for extracts of these guidelines - templates, safety margins, boundary measurements, safety zone, etc.

• *** reproduction of some EIGCA guidelines within: "Current Design Safety Guidance Golf course architects and their organisations have not adopted any specific design and safety standards for a golf course layout. Documents typically provide general recommendations and strongly emphasise the importance of site-specific design criteria and the use of an experienced and reputable golf course architect. However, there have been a few guidelines produced which will be referenced in the following pages. In 2002, the EIGCA produced a report1 for exclusive use by its members to aid them when laying out a golf course. This report suggested a basic framework for laying out of a golf course by providing some basic principles for good design practice. Because each golf hole as well as each golfer is different, these principles were not ‘hard and fast’ rules but rather guidelines which relied upon the experience of the golf course architect to layout the golf holes as safely as reasonably practical. The following diagrams are of greatest relevance to the situations at Northcote Park GC. The diagram (Fig. 1) illustrates that a boundary should be a minimum of 60-100 metres from the centre line of the hole. The variation depends upon the boundary; for instance, a highway is considered a much more sensitive boundary than an open field and should be afforded a greater safety margin. With regards left and right-handed players; as in life, the predominance is for golfers to be right-handed and many left-handers also learn to play right-handed. There is also a predominance for right-handed golfers to slice the golf ball (i.e. left to right) and for left-handers to hook the ball (i.e. left to right). This implies that the right-hand side of a golf hole is the side that will see the most ‘action’. Another study into safety was carried out by the Canadian golf course architect, Dr Michael Hurdzan in the 1990’s2 . The diagram below (Fig. 2) illustrates some of the safety elements he uses when laying out a golf course.Of most relevance to this report is to the bottom left of the figure showing a 15 degree ‘probable zone of play’ from the centre line of the hole. Both sets of guidance are broadly the same and are helpful for judging relative safety parameters but there are other variables such as prevailing wind, trees, location of hazards which must also be taken into account when assessing the safety of a golf hole and this is where the architect’s knowledge and experience must be taken into account. The Hurdzan guidance and another publication produced by PGA Design Consulting Ltd3 found that 92% of golf balls finish within the ‘zone of play’ (i.e. 15 degrees either side of the ideal line of play). Depending upon the sensitivity of the boundary and the frequency of use (i.e. number of balls hit), this figure may be unacceptably low. In terms of netting, the EIGCA guidance states the following – ‘If golf holes are laid out correctly then the need for fencing is greatly minimised and should not generally be required. However, there may be instances where additional fencing is seen as further security against a particularly sensitive boundary or indeed demanded by planning authorities, at least until a thick screen of planting is established. Where concern is expressed regarding shots from tee to fairway then protective fencing should be located by the tee, and as close to the tee as possible. If fencing by a tee is to be installed then its height should not be less than 7-8 metres above that of the level of the tee, and then taken some distance beyond the edge of the particular tee. Fencing will not catch the very poor skied or high sliced shot – what it will do is catch the pulled, topped shot.’ Where fencing near the tee is not possible but locating it along the problem boundary is, ‘the height of the fencing needs to be related to the possible height of the golf ball in flight, possibly in excess of 25m. This would be enormously costly and unsightly and thus all attempts should be made to find an alternative solution’. In relation to guidance for laying out adjacent golf holes and features, the following figures (3 and 4) are of the most relevance.": 'Northcote Golf Club Report on Safety Issues on the Golf Course Version 2' (STRI Australia, 21 December 2022) Appendix K <https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/about-council/documents/03item94northcotegolfcourseappendixijk.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/Q9JZ-EHE6>, referring to Indicative Working Design Considerations For The Laying Out Of Golf Courses, European Institute of Golf Course Architects (EIGCA) – Feb 2002; Golf Course Architecture, Dr. Michael J Hurdzan – 1996 – Sleeping Bear Press; Golf Course Design Safety Guidelines, PGA Design Consulting Ltd – July 2008. -- these documents do not appear to be publicly accessible, and/or kept secret. EIGCA prior to 2015 known as 'British Institute of Golf Course Architects'.

• References in European case law to the PGA and EIGCA Guidelines:

> Urteil Nº 6B_1332/2016 Bundesgericht, 27-07-2017 (Switzerland) <https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://27-07-2017-6B_1332-2016&lang=de&zoom=&type=show_document>, archived at <https://archive.is/wcDQY>: "3.1. Zur Verantwortlichkeit des  Beschwerdegegners 1erwägt die Vorinstanz zusammengefasst, Art und Mass der zu beachtenden Vorsichtsmassnahmen richteten sich nach privaten Regelwerken oder dem allgemeinen Gefahrensatz. Abzustellen sei auf die Rules of Golf (Rules of Golf as approved by R&A Rules Limited and The United States Golf Association, 32nd Edition 2011) einschliesslich die sogenannte Golfetikette. Halte sich ein Golfspieler an diese Regelungen, komme er grundsätzlich seiner Sorgfaltspflicht nach. Gemäss den Rules of Golf habe sich ein Golfspieler vor dem Abschlag zu vergewissern, dass niemand in seiner Nähe stehe oder sonst an einem Ort, wo er von einem Golfball getroffen werden könnte. Ferner solle nicht gespielt werden, solange die vorangehenden Spieler nicht ausser Reichweite seien. Werde ein Ball in eine Richtung gespielt, wo die Gefahr bestehe, dass jemand getroffen werden könnte, müsse der Spieler sofort einen Warnruf ("Fore") abgeben. Dem Beschwerdegegner 1 könne nicht vorgeworfen werden, er habe nicht zugewartet, bis sich der Beschwerdeführer nicht mehr im Sinne der Rules of Golf respektive der Golfetikette in seiner Reichweite vor ihm befunden habe. Jene Vorschrift beziehe sich auf die vorangehende Gruppe. Die Gruppe des Beschwerdeführers habe die bereits spielende Gruppe des Beschwerdegegners 1 beim Abschlagplatz Nr. 9 gesehen, als sie selbst beim Abschlag Nr. 7 angekommen sei. Laut einer ungeschriebenen Vortrittsregelung bei sich gegenüberliegenden Abschlagplätzen - wonach derjenige Spieler, welcher einen Mitspieler einen Ball abschlagen sehe, mit seinem Abschlag zuwartet - sei die Gruppe des Beschwerdegegners 1 vortrittsberechtigt gewesen. Dieser Regelung habe der Beschwerdegegner 1 Rechnung getragen. Als der Beschwerdegegner 1 abgeschlagen habe, habe sich niemand in der Gefahrenzone seines Abschlags befunden. Um diesen Bereich näher zu definieren, könne auf die Golf Course Design Safety Guidelines der PGA (Professional Golfers Association) abgestellt werden. Dieser internationale Verband habe ein Interesse an sicheren Golfplätzen. 92 % aller Bälle wichen maximal 15 Grad von der idealen Flugbahn ab. Der Bereich ausserhalb dieser 15 Grad-Zone sei normalerweise als sicher anzusehen. Dies ergebe sich auch aus dem gleichen Regelwerk, wonach Abschläge unter Beachtung der 15 Grad-Regel zu Fusswegen oder Nebenstrassen angelegt werden dürfen. Die Gefahrenzone sei deshalb mit der 15 Grad-Zone gleichzusetzen. Sie auf eine Zone von 30 Grad auszudehnen, worin 99 % aller Bälle landeten, führe zu weit. Dem Restrisiko von eher seltenen Fehlschlägen werde mit der Regelung des Warnrufs "Fore" begegnet. Die Flugbahn des vom Beschwerdegegner 1 abgeschlagenen Balles sei um rund 20 Grad von der idealen Flugbahn abgewichen. Da sich niemand in der von der geplanten Richtung seines Abschlags betroffenen Gefahrenzone befunden habe, habe der Beschwerdegegner 1 den Schlag ausführen dürfen."(tr) " ... 3.1. Regarding the responsibility of the  defendant 1, the lower court summarised that the type and extent of the precautionary measures to be observed were based on private rules or the general set of risks. The Rules of Golf (Rules of Golf as approved by R&A Rules Limited and The United States Golf Association, 32nd Edition 2011), including the so-called golf etiquette, are to be applied. If a golfer complies with these rules, he is generally fulfilling his duty of care. According to the Rules of Golf, a golfer must make sure before teeing off that no one is standing near him or in any other place where he could be hit by a golf ball. Furthermore, the ball should not be played until the players in front are out of range. If a ball is played in a direction where there is a risk that someone could be hit, the player must immediately give a warning call ("Fore"); Respondent 1 cannot be criticised for not waiting until the complainant was no longer within his reach in accordance with the Rules of Golf or golf etiquette. That rule referred to the preceding group. The complainant's group had seen the already playing group of respondent 1 at teeing ground no. 9 when they themselves had arrived at teeing ground no. 7. According to an unwritten right of way rule for opposite teeing grounds - according to which the player who sees another player teeing off a ball waits to tee off - the group of respondent 1 had the right of way. Respondent 1 had complied with this rule. When Respondent 1 teed off, nobody was in the danger zone of his tee shot. The Golf Course Design Safety Guidelines of the PGA (Professional Golfers Association) could be used to define this area in more detail. This international association has an interest in safe golf courses. 92% of all balls deviate a maximum of 15 degrees from the ideal trajectory. The area outside this 15 degree zone is normally considered safe. This can also be seen from the same set of rules, according to which tees may be created in compliance with the 15 degree rule for footpaths or side roads. The danger zone should therefore be equated with the 15 degree zone. Extending it to a zone of 30 degrees, where 99% of all balls land, would be going too far. The residual risk of rather rare misses is countered by the regulation of the warning call "Fore". The trajectory of the ball hit by respondent 1 deviated by around 20 degrees from the ideal trajectory. Since nobody was in the danger zone affected by the planned direction of his tee shot, respondent 1 was allowed to hit the ball; No further safety regulations to be observed were apparent. The necessity of a warning shout before a tee shot does not arise from any known set of rules and such behaviour would be prone to misunderstandings. It could be left open whether Respondent 1 (after the miss) shouted the warning call "Fore", as he is not accused of failing to do so in the indictment. Overall, Respondent 1 had not violated any known golf rule with his tee shot. He was entitled to assume that he did not endanger the complainant. The complainant's injury could be described as the consequence of the realisation of a calculable, minimal risk specific to the sport of golf. The complainant accepted this risk by going onto the golf course (decision p. 16 ff.)."

> Uitspraak Nº AWB 15_6079. Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant, 2016-05-26 (Netherlands) <https://linkeddata.overheid.nl/front/portal/document-viewer?ext-id=ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2016:3206>, archived at <https://archive.md/tjQW3>, also, see vlex justis: "14.1 Wat betreft de veiligheid van gebruikers van het nieuwe fietspad en het gevaar van afzwaaiende golfballen van de golfbaan blijkt uit de ruimtelijke onderbouwing dat [naam bureau3] in november 2013 en februari 2014 hiernaar onderzoek heeft verricht. Deze rapportages zijn als bijlage bij de ruimtelijke onderbouwing opgenomen. In de rapportages is aan de hand van de richtlijnen van het European Institute of Golf Course Architects geadviseerd om een hekwerk te realiseren met een bouwhoogte van 3,5 meter over een lengte van 110 meter. De rechtbank stelt vast dat het college het advies van Mastergolf heeft overgenomen, nu het bestreden besluit ook betrekking heeft op het bouwen van een hekwerk met een bouwhoogte van 3,5 meter. ... 14.3 De rechtbank is van oordeel dat het tegenadvies van [naam ontwerper] niet leidt tot de conclusie dat de rapportages van [naam bureau3] uit 2013 en 2014 onjuist zijn of onzorgvuldig tot stand zijn gekomen. Het college heeft zich ten tijde van het bestreden besluit dan ook mogen baseren op deze rapportages en zich op het standpunt kunnen stellen dat een hekwerk met een bouwhoogte van 3,5 meter en een lengte van 110 meter voldoende is om gebruikers van het fietspad te beschermen tegen afzwaaiende golfballen. " (tr) "... 14.1 Regarding the safety of users of the new cycle path and the danger of golf balls being blown off the golf course, the spatial substantiation shows that [name bureau3] conducted research into this in November 2013 and February 2014. These reports are appended to the spatial substantiation. Using the guidelines of the European Institute of Golf Course Architects, the reports advised building a fence with a building height of 3.5 metres over a length of 110 metres. The court finds that the college adopted Mastergolf's advice, as the contested decision also relates to building a fence with a building height of 3.5 metres. ... 14.3 The court finds that the counter recommendation by [name of designer] does not lead to the conclusion that the 2013 and 2014 reports by [name of agency3] are incorrect or were drawn up carelessly. At the time of the contested decision, the college was therefore entitled to rely on these reports and take the view that fencing with a construction height of 3.5 metres and a length of 110 metres was sufficient to protect users of the cycle path from golf balls being blown off. However, it is clear from [name of agency3]'s response in January 2016 that in late 2015, after the contested decision was taken, the playing options were widened by the European Golf Association, requiring the safety margins to be adjusted. [designer name] also refers to this. [name bureau3] therefore advises extending the fencing at the level of tee-off hole 15 from 110 metres to 150 metres. The court deduces from the defence and the proceedings at the hearing that the college, following this advice from [name agency3] , is also of the opinion that the fencing should be adjusted. The court assumes that the board will honour this commitment."

> Eerste aanleg - meervoudig of Council of State (Netherlands), ECLI:NL:RVS:2009:BJ6054, Wednesday August 26, 2009 <https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2009:BJ6054&showbutton=true&keyword=2006-010977&idx=1>, archived at <https://archive.md/N9jHP>, see also vlex justis: "2.8. Oorspronkelijk voorzag het plan in twee oversteekplaatsen voor wandelaars die van het wandelpad tussen de Dubbeltjesweg en de Ulenpaslaan gebruik maken. Uit het verhandelde ter zitting is gebleken dat een deel van de route van het wandelpad over de toekomstige golfbaan is verlegd en dat dit deel van de route inmiddels aan de openbaarheid is onttrokken als bedoeld in artikel 9 van de Wegenwet, zodat thans uitsluitend nog de oversteekplaats ter hoogte van de Ezelsweide aan de orde is. Wat betreft de veiligheid van wandelaars is in het bestreden besluit vermeld dat uit gegevens van de verzekeraar van de Nederlandse Golffederatie blijkt dat het risico voor wandelaars op paden die langs of over een golfbaan lopen gering is, mede vanwege het statische karakter van het spel en de strenge regelgeving en etiquette met betrekking tot de veiligheid. Ook staat in het bestreden besluit dat het baan-ontwerp is opgesteld door een golfbaanarchitect volgens de door de beroepsorganisatie European Institute of Golf Course Architects aanbevolen regelgeving, waarmee een veilige inrichting is verzekerd. [appellanten] hebben niet aannemelijk gemaakt dat het college er niet van heeft kunnen uitgaan dat de golfbaan zodanig kan en zal worden ingericht dat daarin geen onveilige kruising van het wandelpad met de golfbaan wordt opgenomen en dat de veiligheid van de wandelaars die van het pad gebruik maken kan worden gewaarborgd." (tr) "2.8. The plan originally provided for two crossings for walkers using the footpath between Dubbeltjesweg and Ulenpaslaan. It emerged from the proceedings at the hearing that part of the route of the footpath across the future golf course has been relocated and that this part of the route has since been withdrawn from public use as referred to in Article 9 of the Roads Act, so that now only the crossing at the level of the Ezelsweide is under discussion. Regarding the safety of walkers, the contested decision states that data from the insurance company of the Dutch Golf Federation shows that the risk to walkers on paths running alongside or over a golf course is low, partly because of the static nature of the game and the strict regulations and etiquette regarding safety. The contested decision also states that the course design was prepared by a golf course architect in accordance with the regulations recommended by the professional organisation European Institute of Golf Course Architects, ensuring a safe layout. [appellants] have not made it plausible that the college could not have assumed that the golf course can and will be designed in such a way that it does not include an unsafe junction of the footpath with the golf course and that the safety of walkers using the path can be ensured."

• PGA Design Consulting Ltd - Golf Course Design Safety Guidelines -- now published by 'Golfsafetyexpert', International Design Group: 

> "PGA Design Consulting Ltd, the technical design and consultancy advisors to the PGA frequently act as Expert Witness. Bob Hunt, Managing Director said, "Recently, we have seen a considerable growth in accidents at golf courses and ranges and even greater increases in the level of claim settlements being awarded by the Courts. These accidents do not restrict themselves to municipal courses and ranges but are experienced at all types of facility including members' clubs and proprietary golf facilities.": 'Safety on Golf Courses', Greenkeeper International, 2004 Nov 6 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2004nov6.pdf>; <https://golfbusinessnews.com/news/management-topics/playing-safe-on-golf-courses-and-ranges/>, archived at <https://archive.md/kNCu4>. -- Robert Hunt. 

> "As the number of accidents on UK Golf Courses and Driving Ranges continues to rise and claims now run into millions of Euros, a series of new services is now available to golf clubs and lawyers. “It’s not just golfers who are in danger on golf courses,” says Bob Hunt, Chairman of International Design Group and author of ‘Golf Course Design – Safety Guidelines’ and ‘Golf Driving Ranges – a Design Guide’ who has now established a new consultancy entitled ‘Golfsafetyexpert’ – www.golfsafetyexpert.co.uk “After 20 years of dealing with golf related accidents, I am amazed that club managers, Boards and staff still fail to understand the risks and liabilities involved in golf.” Covering all aspects of Risk Assessments and Health & Safety on site, Golfsafetyexpert also offers Expert Witness services to solicitors dealing with thousands of golf accident cases every year. A series of free publications dealing with aspects of golf and golf safety is available through the web site or via Twitter(@golfsafety Having worked on very many cases in the UK, Bob says that the Golf Design Guidelines are now used internationally as the only set of published Guidelines in Europe. Bob Hunt can be contacted via golfsafetyexpert@gmail.com Golfsafetyexpert www.golfsafetyexpert.co.uk": 'Danger on Course: The Risks and Liabilities Involved in Golf' (Golf Business News, 18 August 2015) <https://golfbusinessnews.com/news/management-topics/danger-on-course-the-risks-and-liabilities-involved-in-golf/>, archived at <https://archive.md/BOHdC>. 

> "... The following publications are available from Golf Safety Expert at a cost: Golf Course Design - Safety Guidelines    £50.00 Golf Driving Ranges - A Design Guide      £50.00 STOP PRESS The 2016 review of the Golf Course Design - Safety Guidelines has just been published and is now available electronically.": 'Publications' (GolfSafetyExpert, Webpage) <https://www.golfsafetyexpert.co.uk/publications>, archived at <https://archive.md/NJbde>. 

> "Bob Hunt has been designing, building and operating golf clubs and resorts for over 35 years and was the author of a number of guides published on behalf of the Professional Golfers Association of Great Britain and Ireland and numerous other technical papers and books. With experience of over 400 projects across the world, Bob has seen most problems associated with the safe design and operation of golf courses, driving ranges and practice facilities. He has designed many golf courses and masterplanned communities across the world and was responsible for the research on safety which was completed for the safety guideline publications.": 'About' (GolfSafetyExpert, Webpage) <https://www.golfsafetyexpert.co.uk/about>, archived at <https://archive.md/kkD9Z>. 

> Extract from the PGA Design Consulting guidelines, Bridleways and Footpaths, email from Bob Hunt to Hannah Titchener, 19 October 2021: <https://staffordshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s155460/5053835%20-%20report%20c-%20appendix%20H.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/WG2H-2UJG>: "I attach an extract from the only published Safety Guidance (originally prepared for the PGA of Great Britain and Ireland) on golf course design. ..."

> See also: 

-> Robert Hunt, 'Golf development and the planning process in the UK — Is it worth the gamble?' (2001) 2(1) Journal of Leisure Property 52-65 <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/palgrave.rlp.5090139.pdf>. 

-> 'Evidence of Mr Hunt', Minutes of Oral Evidence taken before the High Speed Rail Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, 2 September 2020, 'Bob Hunt, Ingestre Park Golf Club <https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/797/html/>, archived at <https://archive.is/CyhB6>: "... I at that time was technical director of the PGA subsidiary, PGA Design Consulting, which is now International Design Group ...".

-> 'New Holes Open at Remodelled Ingestre' (2023) 74 Golf Course Architecture 36-37 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue74/36/>. 

-> 'The Interview with Jon Hunt' (2022) 69 Golf Course Architect 28-29 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue69/28/>. 

-> "... In 1992 I was Technical Director for a subsidiary of the PGA of Great Britain and Ireland. There were so many accidents on courses in the UK that the PGA tasked me with creating a design guide for reasonably safe golf courses – absolute safety is, of course, not possible. I research all available data internationally and carried out tests on a range in the UK to understand ball distribution from average club golfers. From this the initial publication was made publicly available. Soon afterwards the European Institute of Golf Course Architects commission an acquaintance of mine Simon Gidman to do a similar exercise. When Simon finished I think he assumed it would also be published. However members of the EIGCA decided not to publish but to make available to their members for internal use. In consequence the PGA Guidance has formed the basis of very many accident cases internationally and was even used as the basis for statutory requirements in one country. The PGA decided to change the name of the original subsidiary from PGA Golf Management to PGA Design Consulting. ... Since that time we have updated the design guide to cope with more detailed issues which have arisen from the cases where I have acted as Expert Witness.": Robert Hunt to JZ Wong, personal correspondence, 31 December 2024. 

-> see also, Craven, below. 

• *** R&A, Golf for Smaller Spaces Guide (2024): 

> Golf for Smaller Spaces: A Guide (R&A, 2024) <https://assets.randa.org/c42c7bf4-dca7-00ea-4f2e-373223f80f76/0626ec4d-2544-4a6a-b307-f0eb46a512c1/Golf%20For%20Smaller%20Spaces%20Guide.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/F7QA-MQU8>. 

-> * 'Guide on developing golf in small spaces' (EIGCA, 28 October 2024) <https://eigca.org/guide-on-developing-golf-in-small-spaces/>, archived at <https://perma.cc/MB8Z-SCL2>. 

-> 'The R&A’s New “Golf for Smaller Spaces” Guide Unveils Compact Course Innovations' (Liv Golf Weekly, 25 October 2024) <https://livgolfweekly.com/the-ras-new-golf-for-smaller-spaces-guide-unveils-compact-course-innovations/>, archived at <https://archive.is/E1hg9>: "In a vibrant effort to tee off golf into the urban sprawl, The R&A, in cahoots with the European Institute of Golf Course Architects, has unfurled a nifty new guide, “Golf for Smaller Spaces.” It’s more than just a manual—it’s a manifesto for squeezing the ancient game of golf into the nooks and crannies of our bustling cities and beyond. ..."

-> * Alex Perry, 'R&A issues new guidance that could save your golf course' (Bunkered, 24 October 2024) <https://www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/r-and-a-issues-golf-for-smaller-spaces-guidance/>, archived at <https://archive.md/5eil7>: "... Concerned industry experts have told bunkered that more will follow if something is not done about the cost-of-living crisis, or measures are taken to protect courses from ever-changing weather conditions. Now, The R&A has put forward proposals in a new guide aimed at helping golf clubs make the most of their space. With support from the European Institute of Golf Course Architects, the Golf for Smaller Spaces guide, the governing body says it “examines how smaller-space courses operate and sets out practical requirements and commercial considerations for establishing such courses”. ... The idea is that if facilities – particularly those in cities or urban areas – can utilise the space they have, then golf becomes more accessible to a wider demographic. As the guide explains: “From putting course to virtual golf simulators, a driving range to Pitch & Putt, nine-hole golf to championship courses, all golf is golf.”".

-> 'The R&A Releases Guide to ‘Golf for Smaller Spaces’ (APGC Online, 25 October 2024) <https://www.apgc.online/the-ra-releases-guide-to-golf-for-smaller-spaces?amp=1>, archived at <https://archive.md/TALXL>. 

> See Jonathan Gaunt and related articles, below, about design safety and spaces constraints. 

• 'Suggested References': ASGCA: 

> Guidelines for Planning and Building a Golf Course. Jupiter, Florida: National Golf Foundation, Executive Summaries 1998.

> Golf Course Design and Construction – Guidelines for Designing and Building Regulation 9- and 18-hole Golf Courses. Jupiter, FL: National Golf Foundation, 1998. <https://library.experience.iiivega.com/search/card?id=86a22fe7-ba42-5275-b20a-a338baf48c3d&entityType=FormatGroup>. WorldCat: <https://search.worldcat.org/title/41912026?oclcNum=41912026>. 

See, Bill Love, An Environmental Approach to Golf Course Development (American Society of Golf Course Architects, 2008) 54.

• "... The Anatomy of a Golf Course (1992) by Tom Doak, Golf Course Architecture: Design, Construction and Restoration (1996) by Dr. Michael Hurdzan, and Grounds for Golf (2003) by Geoff Shackelford (Appendix B.11) represent the works that most would consider the modern “textbooks” of golf course design and construction (EIGCA, 2016). However, while these books frequently site key projects, individual golf holes, and designers of the past to represent design ideals, there is no significant connection or rationalization of the influences which shaped these designers and their projects. ... In Britain, F.W. Hawtree would produce four excellent works, titled: Colt & Co.: Course Architects (1991); Triple Baugé, Promenades in Medieval Golf (1996); Aspects of Golf Course Architecture I, 1889-1924, an Anthology (1998); and, Aspects of Golf Course Architecture II, 1924-1971 (1999) (EIGCA, 2000). ": Keith Cullen, 'Exploring the History of Golf Course Design' (MLA Thesis, University of Guelph, 2016) 31, 173 <https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/bitstream/10214/9681/3/Cutten_Keith_201604_MLA.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/V24K-HJRY>, referring to ''European Institute of Golf Course Architects Recommended Reading' (EIGCA) <https://eigca.org/download/18498/?tmstv=1735452806>, archived at <https://perma.cc/X4QF-EGYG>.  

• " ... Defendant also submitted an affidavit from Barry Jordan, a golf course architect. Jordan explained that the golf course consists of nine holes built in 1924. As a "classic" course, its "tees and greens [are] in close proximity to one other, often sharing a high point or elevated feature in the landscape." Jordan averred that the layout between holes three and seven is typical for a classic course, whereas more modern courses generally "provide greater separation between tees and greens and wider safety zones that delineate ‘probable areas of play’ " (emphasis omitted). He further opined that there were no "industry standard[s], rule[s] or regulation[s] requiring [defendant] to re-design or re-build its holes to accommodate all possible shots" and "no authoritative texts or guidelines which establish minimum standards for golf course design." Jordan, who personally inspected holes three and seven, did not observe any concealed or hidden conditions as to the topography and opined that neither the topography of the course nor the proximity of these holes unreasonably increased the risk "that a player on the [seventh] fairway [would] be struck by [an] errant tee shot from the back tee of the [third] hole." He elaborated that there were no industry standards requiring a barricade to be installed between adjacent holes or requiring the placement of signage warning of blind spots. While he noted that "the presence of golfers at the back tee on [hole three] is not observable from the [seventh] fairway," he emphasized that "it [wa]s reasonable to assume that players having already played hole [three] before playing hole [seven] … are aware that the view is obstructed by the natural topography of the two holes." Finally, he opined that the placement of tee A did not unreasonably increase the risk that a player on the seventh fairway would be struck by an errant tee shot from the third tee. Defendant also presented the expert affidavit of Michael Doctor – a professional golfer and coach – who echoed many of Jordan’s opinions. Doctor explained that written guidance provided by organizations such as the Professional Golfers’ Association of America (hereinafter PGA) constitute "best practice[/]instructive recommendations" and are not "authoritative" guidelines that golf courses must follow. Nor is there a requirement that golf courses conduct safety audits or employ safety committees. As for the June 2020 tournament, Doctor noted that "shotgun starts" are not uncommon and that "[t]he risk of being struck by a golf ball is an inherent risk of the game of golf." After personally inspecting holes three and seven, he concluded that "there was no violation of any [United States Golf Association] rules" when Hubbard took the shot from the third tee and, since plaintiff was not in the intended path of the shot, Hubbard was not obligated to "attempt to observe if there were golfers on the [sev-  enth] fairway before taking his tee shot." Doctor opined, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that the course was "reasonably and appropriately operated, managed, and maintained on the date of [plaintiff’s] accident and did not contravene the tournament’s stated rules."": Katleski v. Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc., 225 A.D.3d 1030 (NY App Div 2024). 

• *** "This Health & Safety Report has been prepared in relation to a recent personal injury/accident that occurred on neighbouring land to the Hurst Golf Centre as a result of a stray golf ball hitting a member of the public. The golf ball had been hit by a golfer whilst playing the 4 th hole – the golfer did not report the incident. Another incident occurred where a stray golf ball flew over the 9th green and landed in a children’s play area – nobody got hit by the golf ball on this occasion. Again, the golfer did not report the incident. ...": 'Safety Report in relation to Hurst Golf Centre, Wokingham, Berkshire' (Gaunt Golf Design, 21 November 2013) <https://wokingham.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Executive/201410301930/Agenda/335764.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/QM47-TXBP>. -- This report also summarises 'Industry standards or Industry Research' at 4-7: "... 1. In this report I am advising on solutions that could be taken to substantially reduce, and ideally eliminate, the incidence of golf balls landing on neighbouring land. In compiling this report we have drawn on the following sources of information on golf ball flight and deviation. 2. There are no published or statutory safety guidelines relating to golf courses and golf facilities that are freely available on a nationwide basis, however, there are some that have been produced by individual local authorities in the UK that can be referred to. These are:  The Essex Golf Report – Essex Planning Officers Association – October 1990  Golf Course Development in Hampshire – Development Plans Group – Hampshire & Isle of Wight Planning Officers Group – March 1992  Oxfordshire County Council – Rights of Way Standards of Provision  Golf Courses in Gloucester – Guidelines for Location and Design of Golf Courses – October 1991  Maidstone Borough Council – Planning Guidance Notes – Number 5 – Golf Courses – February 1992  Surrey County Council - Guidelines for the development of new golf facilities in Surrey – January 1992 3. The Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, in association with the United States Golf Association have undertaken exhaustive research into golf equipment and shot analysis, but they are unable to give us permission to use their data. 4. The European Institute of Golf Course Architects have also undertaken in-depth research into golf shots and the way in which golf courses may be designed to minimise or eradicate problems with neighbouring properties and public highways including footpaths and bridleways. They are unable to give us permission to use their data. Some guidelines (unpublished, dated April 2002) – entitled Indicative Working Design – Considerations for the Laying out of Golf Courses - have been prepared by the European Institute of Golf Course Architects, for use by Members of the EIGCA only, so, as such, they are not “published”. However, in Gaunt Golf Design Ltd we apply these guidelines to all our projects, and consider them in all specialist advice we provide. 5. The English Golf Union (EGU) has also undertaken research and produced detailed guidelines for the use of their advisors on new golf developments. They would not allow us to make reference to these. However, the EGU publication (which is available to download from their website), entitled A Golf Clubs’ Guide to Course Rating & Standard Scratch Scores, does include an accuracy table which we have considered in the preparation of this report - see overleaf. 6. The EGU also produced an advisory document called Aspects of Golf Development, published in 1988, in which it states general guidelines for golf development, particularly relating to the standard area required for 18-hole golf courses. 7. Another EGU advisory/guidance document is entitled Public Footpaths and Bridleways on New Courses and was published in 1991 – which gives specific guidelines on safety margins. 8. Design standards gleaned while working as a qualified golf course architect since 1990, based on working knowledge and experience from over 150 projects around the world. 9. Golf Course Design Safety Guidelines published by PGA Design Consulting Ltd. 10. A chart on the Probable Golf Instruction website on golf ball flight trajectories. ... The Accuracy Table is used as a standard reference by ratings officials in the EGU – it is an excellent “bench mark” to be used. In effect, the length of drives (hit with a driver which is the longest-hitting club available) of the best (scratch) golfers (in developed golfing nations, such as UK and USA) will travel (including bounce and roll) a distance of approximately 240 – 260 yards (219 – 238 metres). 12. Professor Mark Broadie of Columbia University in USA produced a paper for: Science & Golf V: Proceedings of the 2008 World Scientific Congress of Golf. The paper, entitled Assessing Golfer Performance Using Golfmetrics was produced to support a software application called Golfmetrics, which was created to capture and store golfer shot data and to quantify differences in shot patterns between players of different levels. The main point that Professor Broadie makes is that longer hitters (of golf balls) tend to be straighter than shorter hitters. He states that not only are (US) PGA Tour players much longer hitters, they are about twice as straight as amateurs. A likely reason is that golfers who hit the ball longer have better swings, make better contact and are generally better golfers."

> while some guidelines do become publicly available, they appear to be kept unpublished by the industry as proprietary knowledge. 

• 'Golf Course Effects on Hitting Distance: Findings from research conducted for Distance Insights primarily in 2020 and 2021' (USGA, March 2023) <https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2023/Golf-Course-Distance-Effects-Final.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/CC2Q-UCYA>. 

> See also, R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association. Simulations on the Effect of Tee to Landing Zone Elevation Differences on Distance. St Andrews, Liberty Corner, NJ: R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association, 2022; R&A Rules, Ltd. Impact on Driving Distance of Fairway Width and Height, and Rough Height. St Andrews: R&A Rules, Ltd., 2022.

• *** 'Impact of Safety Margins and Routing Style on Footprint' (R&A) <https://assets.randa.org/c42c7bf4-dca7-00ea-4f2e-373223f80f76/da0446cc-ed97-4c8a-91fa-cda4c6d9f3e6/R35%20-%20Impact%20of%20Safety%20Margins%20and%20Routing%20Style%20on%20Footprint.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/8MHA-ZRBP>: "2.1 Offset to Course Boundaries Richardson stresses the need for the architect to use judgement in determining safety (or to use his suggestion, “safer”) envelopes although he provides very few specific dimensions of these envelopes. He does however cite a municipality that provides specific guidance for golf hole “envelopes” that require at 200 ft clearance from the centre of the fairway. Based on a survey of golf course architects, Richardson indicates that 180 ft of clearance from the fairway centreline to adjacent property lines is generally used. Michael Hurdzan (Hurdzan, 2018) discusses an even wider range of potential safety risks on a golf course. Hurdzan devotes an entire chapter to the discussion of golf related accidents and suggests guidelines that have clear implications on the footprint of a golf course. Hurdzan provides two specific dimensions for the purpose of safety. First, he indicates that 92% of shots from recreational golfers will end up within a ±15° cone. Unfortunately, he does not provide guidance on the reasonable shot length in order to calculate a safe offset. However, he does indicate that the property line should not be less than 200 ft from the centreline of a fairway. The Urban Land Institute (Muirhead & Rando, 1994) once published more specific guidelines with respect to safety margins for single and double corridor fairway designs which specified larger margins than prior, similar, published dimensions. The ULI text cites guidance from the 1970s by Patrick Shane Mulligan in which the safety corridor should be approximately 200 ft. The ULI increased this in 1994 to 210 ft. Figure 1 shows some of the dimensional guidance provided by the ULI. ... The range of acceptable values listed in Table 1 suggests that the choice of safety margins has a strong influence on the footprint of the golf course. As a potentially oversimplified estimate, if we imagine a course comprised of a single loop of straight holes with a 50-yard buffer from the green centre to the next tee, we can compute a theoretical total footprint. Table 2 shows the impact on footprint of the choice of safety corridor width. Also included is the effect of a 6500-yard golf course compared with a 7200-yard golf course.". -- see article for further guidelines, especially figures 1 and 2 within.

• USGA / R&A Distance Insight Reports, see <https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights.html> for updates. 

> Feb 2020: <https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2020/distance-insights/DIPR-FINAL-2020-usga.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/B5MM-HNB5>. 

> 2021: <https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/2021%20Distance%20Report%20Final%2010-03-2022.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/DL2A-7E9X>. 

> 2022: <https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2023/2022-ADDR-Distance-Report-Final.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/V8WZ-CUUS>. 

> 2023: <https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/2023-Distance-Report-final-310124.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/3ZYW-EN9C> -- published Oct 2024.

• Course Routing, pace of play: Pace of Play Manual (R&A, 2021) <https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/c42c7bf4-dca7-00ea-4f2e-373223f80f76/2ed7ea38-67be-409c-8046-d055c3d4c1df/Pace%20of%20Play%20Manual.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/2JAD-5M3M>. 

> Course Routing and re-routing. -- see Manual ch 3 for course design recommendations. 

> See also, 'Royal & Ancient Pace of Play Manual' (St Michael's Golf, 11 November 2018) <https://www.stmichaelsgolf.com.au/cms/2018/11/11/royal-ancient-pace-of-play-manual/>, archived at <https://archive.is/sFZJb>. 

> "... Golf isn’t completely safe, but a good routing doesn’t create safety issues. Parallel fairways should be at least 70 yards centerline to centerline, and 50 yards from property lines. Tees and greens should be outside the normal landing zones of other holes, generally more than 15 degrees off the intended line of play. Add “with more preferred” to the above statements.": Jeffrey D Brauer, 'Good Routing' (Golf Course Industry, 10 September 2018) <https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/golf-design-good-routing/>, archived at <https://archive.md/05O54>. 

> Jeffrey D Brauer, 'Safety's link to litigation (Design concepts)' (Golf Course Industry, 21 March 2007) <https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/safety-s-link-to-litigation--design-concepts-/>, archived at <https://archive.is/tlQkJ>; See also (2007) Golf Course News <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/2007mar24.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/96YW-SJCR>. -- cart paths, steep slopes, wayward shots.

> See also, Jeffrey D Brauer, 'Designing for golf course safety', in Paul Daley, Golf Architecture: A Worldwide Perspective -- Volume Two (Pelican Publishing, 2003) 234-7 <https://tic.lib.msu.edu/tgif/fullrecord/106226>. 

> 'Golf Course Routing: The Arrangement of a Series of Golf Holes On the Land.' (Richard Mandell Golf Architecture, Webpage) <https://www.golf-architecture.com/routing-the-golf-course>, archived at <https://archive.is/33yRq>. 

> 'Course Rater Confidential: What makes golf-course routing so hard, and so important?' (Golf.com, 30 May 2020) <https://golf.com/travel/what-makes-golf-course-routing-difficult-important/>, archived at <https://archive.md/j0c6b>. 

> 'What is course routing and how does it affect your round?' (Golf.com, 10 May 2020) <https://golf.com/travel/what-is-course-routing-architecture/>, archived at <https://archive.is/ZpWtz>. 

> See especially, on the process of routing a golf course, Toby Ingleton, 'Solving the Puzzle' (2016) 30 By Design 12-17 <https://asgca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/By-Design-Issue-30-Winter-2016-003.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/MB3S-NEUS>. 

-> citing Forrest Richardson, Routing the Golf Course (Wiley, 2002). Content page: <https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/0471434809.frontmatter.pdf>. 

> See also, Toby Ingleton, 'Planning to Succeed' (2018) <https://www.jdrewrogers.com/content/userfiles/ByDesign_PlanningToSucceed_Summer18.compressed.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/64XA-MA89>. 

> ** Bob Lohman, 'Initial Ideas on Golf Course Circulation' (1984) 2(5) The Grass Roots 32 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/groot/article/1984sep22.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/YNV4-L9UY>. 

• Categories of issues: "Routeing [sic], Layout, Safety and Strategy": EIGCA Professional Diploma in Golf Course Design, Course Prospectus <https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/36302177/the-eigca-professional-diploma-in-golf-course-design-course->. 

• Forensic architecture in golf course design: "This paper demonstrates the “Generally Accepted Guidelines” for Safety Planning for errant golf shots in the golf course design process ...": Michael S Johnstone, 'Forensic Architect's Investigation of Golf Course Safety' (2008) 25(2) Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers 109 <https://journal.nafe.org/ojs/index.php/nafe/article/view/701>. 

• F W Hawtree, The Golf Course: Planning Design, Construction and Maintenance (E&FN Spon, 2005) <https://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/2901/1/6.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/3F8R-AY7K>. 

• M G Hawtree, Golf Course Design and Planning (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 1992) <https://rics.koha-ptfs.co.uk/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=93736>. 

• Paul Worster, 'Practical Golf Course Safety' (Pitchcare, 5 December 2016) <https://www.pitchcare.com/blogs/news/practical-golf-course-safety>, archived at <https://archive.md/NI6y4>. 

• ** Cart safety on slopes - traction: John Ross, 'Staying safe on the slopes: How you can keep your team safe on the course' (2016) May Greenkeeper International 38-41 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2016may.pdf#page=20>, archived at <https://perma.cc/YHE8-HB9R>. 

• Dan Bubany, 'Golf Course Design Rules of Thumb' (Dan Bubany Golf, Blog Post) <https://danbubanygolf.com/golf-course-design-rules-of-thumb/>, archived at <https://archive.is/WahMA>. -- citing Hurdzan. 

• * Sport Scotland datasheet specifications for practice facilities - guidelines: 'Development Centre Facilities - Golf Practice Facilities Datasheet 802' (Sport Scotland, 2023) <https://sportscotland.org.uk/media/wmzjt305/802-golf-development-centre.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/NE33-6AWM>; see also, <https://sportscotland.org.uk/facilities/design-guidance/outdoor-facilities/golf-development-centres>, archived at <https://archive.md/qgZi4>. 

• 'Fremantle Public Golf Course - City of Fremantle' (Presentation, September 2019) <https://ehq-production-australia.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2de3a838c774ba618b9aa88a120da9d5db15e1a4/original/1590728508/P19016_AS_FPGC_004_Project_Update_190913.pdf_ddd83853cd4c098d3faa2ffb12b19ed4?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKIFWFOUYFI%2F20241227%2Fap-southeast-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20241227T142752Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6434afb475aacb07d55ab3b09bde002c91e03d2cd015bc7b0b7217b30f695fac>, archived at <https://perma.cc/MQP6-JZLJ>. 

• Jon Allbutt and John Davis, 'Health and Safety in Golf Course Management and Maintenance' (The Greenkeepers Training Committee, 2007) <http://www.hoyocero.com.ar/Salud-y-seguridad-en-la-gesti%C3%B3n-y-mantenimiento-de-campos-de-golf-6054369.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/NN5H-HJUJ>. 

• 'Strategic Golf Course Review of Earlsferry & Elie Links' (European Golf Design, December 2022) 16-19 ("Safety") <https://www.golfhouseclub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/GHC_Elie_Strategic_Review_EGD_15.3.23_LowRes.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/G2JG-HX78>.    

• Bradley S Klein, 'The Five Basic Rules for Designing a Great Golf Course' (Wall Street Journal, 8 April 2023) <https://www.wsj.com/articles/designing-great-golf-courses-five-rules-705d9d7f>, archived at <https://archive.is/8lbMq>. 

• Brett Charrington, 'Foreseeability and causal links: Golfing Liability' (2003) 59 Plaintiff 16 <https://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PlaintiffJlAUPLA/2003/80.pdf> -- see cases cited within.

> golf course design: "The Albany Golf Club Incorporated v Carey ... Mr Carey brought an action against the golf club, alleging that the position ot the tenth green in relation to the practice fairway was dangerous and posed a foreseeable risk of injury. The judge at first instance agreed. The club appealed various grounds, three of which are of general application. First, that the judge had failed to take into account Mr Carey’s prior knowledge of the presence of the practice balls and the layout of the course. It was argued this should have led to a finding of voluntary assumption of risk. Second, the plaintiffs knowledge of the risk and its inherent nature modified the defendants duty such that no duty was owed in respect of the risk concerned. Third, the test in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt3 had been wrongly applied in that the risk involved was outweighed by the difficulty of taking alleviating action, especially having regard to the absence of a prior incident such as befell Mr Carey. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, per Wallace J held: ‘I find that there was on the day in question a foreseeable risk that a ball struck from the practice tee would strike, and thereby physically injure, players using the tenth green, and that that in fact happened. I further find that reasonable alternatives were available, in particular that the tenth hole be resited to the north and west or alternatively that use of the practice tee be restricted to certain clubs or whilst play was not in progress on the tenth green. The defendant club was therefore in breach of its duty of care to the plaintiff in permitting players to use the practice tee at the time and in the way they did.’ It should be noted that a golf course consultant’s evidence at trial established that the design of the practice fairway did not conform to modern standards because it was too close to the tenth fairway and green. The consultant recommended relocating the green 20 metres to the west and 40 to 50 metres to the north, at a cost of $3000. An architect to the Soi Australian Golf Associate described the practice fairw; width as barely adequate, an the layout as the ‘minimun acceptable level’". at 16-17.

• 'Statement by Golf Course Architect Regarding Safety of Golf Course Development at Oatlands Golf Course' (Golf by Design, October 2021) <https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20SCC2021COPAR-2!20211029T053632.050%20GMT>, archived at <https://perma.cc/AW25-PBK4>. 

• 'Northcote Golf Course - Course Masterplan Report - City of Darebin' (Contour Golf Design Group, November 2023) <https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/about-council/documents/01item94northcotegolfcourseappendixab.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/EC5L-7Y6L>. 

• 'Fairbairn Golf Club, Canberra - Course Masterplan Report' (Countour Golf Design Group, November 2023) <https://fairbairngolfclub.com.au/files/FGC-Masterplan.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/99CA-2PGZ>. 

• Paul Mogford, 'How to Design a Golf Hole' (The Travelling Golfer, Webpage) <https://www.thetravellinggolfer.com.au/reports/how-to-design-a-golf-hole>, archived at <https://archive.is/XL4AI>. 

• 'Marrickville Parklands, Golf Course and Dibble Avenue Waterhole - Part 2 Masterplan' (Welsh & Major Architects, November 2020) 65-69 <https://hdp-au-prod-app-innerwest-yoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/1516/5940/5297/94b7379e7305ba731f20c1496123d955_Marrickville_Parklands_and_Golf_Course_draft_Master_Plan_28629.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/VLG5-AR3V> .

• 'Ocean Shores Country Club Golf Course Master Plan - Design Report' (Richard Chamberlain Golf Design, September 2021) <https://oceanshorescc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/newOcean_Shores_Country_Club_Final_Design_Report_Sept2021.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/C3KS-9ZEG>. 

• 'Queensland Golf Facilities Plan, Project Bulleyon #1' (Golf Australia and Queensland Government, 2019) <https://cdn.revolutionise.com.au/events/zduupmgufq2ds7zt.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/623K-AF89>. 

> see also, 'Queensland Golf Facilities Plan 2020-2030' (InsideEdge, 2020) <https://ieslp.com.au/casestudies/queensland-gold-facilities-plan-2020-2030/>. 

• "... Mr Diakogeorgio explained to the Panel the technical aspects of why stray balls may end up on the subject land. Because of the prominent slope from right to left and the tendency of a golf ball to roll down the slope, it is the intention of most golfers to aim as far right as they can to remain on the higher side of the fairway and have a clearer approach to the green. However this leads to an increased risk of ball egress if a tee shot was miss-hit due to the line of play being right of a normal centre line approach. Ball egress has known to occur between the 150m and 250m range and to land up to 20m inside the proposed development property. Mr Diakogeorgio demonstrated with a template (developed from a golf design text by Dr Michael Hardpan) applied to the contour plan. He used what he considered to be a safe angle (adopting a conservative 18 degrees variation from the centre line rather than the 15 degrees suggested in the golfing text) of perceived risk or mis-hit from the tees. Whilst Mr Diakogeorgio suggested that there were no absolute standards in predicting these matters, with variations due to golf ball technology, prevailing wind, weather, topography/slope direction of play and other factors effecting the result. Mr Mark Fowler presented golf design evidence on behalf of AV Jennings, and tabled templates of safety guidelines over the 7th Tee area available to him via the Society of Australia of Golf Course Architects (SAGCA). He checked this result via the templates of equivalent peak Societies in the USA and Europe. He concluded that with respect to the “subject land ... it complies with safety guidelines in all cases”. The Panel noted that the SAGCA templates were not too dissimilar to the template used by Mr Diakogeorgio. Mr Fowler under questioning from the Panel did not completely exclude the possibility of the occasional shot from the 7th Tee, aided by adverse weather conditions and the skill of the player, from landing a golf ball on the subject site. The Panel observed that despite the basis of the theoretical calculations, the two witnesses agreed that the possibility of a few balls a year may find their way onto the Jenning's land. It seemed to the Panel however, that if just one of these balls caused serious nuisance, injury or damage, remedial measures should be taken from the outset. ... Panel Findings: The potential for at least some golf balls emanating from the 7th Tee onto the AV Jennings land requires the Medway Golf Club to undertake further works at the interface with the subject land, as a clear duty of care. Necessary works are considered to be: A fence of sufficient height to retain golf balls within the course (or other aesthetically acceptable alternative) for those areas of the boundary where theoretical calculations (and golfing experience) have proved to be where golf balls are likely to egress; and • Increased tree and scrub planting to both screen the safety fence and contribute to golf ball safety, perhaps on mounding, to raise the boundary land form to at least the height of the uppermost Tee at the 7th. ... ": 'Report of a Panel Pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act - Maribyrnong Planning Scheme' (September 2004) 88-90 <https://stfpbsprodapp01.blob.core.windows.net/amendmentfiles/d76ac810-6c70-e811-a857-000d3ad11148_7627eedb-c23f-4e39-82c7-1141c1ca2c12_Maribyrnong%20C38%20&%20C41%20Panel%20Report%20-%20%20Body.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/BL9G-CTBT>; also accessible on AustLII at [2004] PPV 107 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/PPV/2004/107.html>. 

• **** Vic Panel Report - Golf Design - 'Industry Standard' - 70 m width: "... A further minor change was tabled at the hearing to achieve golf course safety  design standards. In the revised proposal the south east portion of the site retains the golf course function unchanged but reconfigured in layout; it contains the course maintenance and the existing clubhouse facilities; and proposes to create a site (5000m2) for uses such as a medical centre, allowable in a residential zone. The north west portion contains part of the golf course, in combination with development of the site for residential and related purposes. Uses proposed within the development include a nine hole golf course; residential units (max 200 lots, area 4.47ha); retirement village (max 120 lots, area 2.38ha); recreation centre and tennis court (area 0.31ha); and medical centre. In addition it proposes two areas of public open space to be transferred to Council - in the north adjoining the secondary access road (area 0.41ha[1]) and mid site adjacent to the main access road (area 0.14ha). ... 5.3.2 GOLF COURSE DESIGN Given there were a number of submissions made to the Panel on the viability of a nine hole golf course compared to a standard eighteen hole course, and questions of  safety  both from an internal pedestrian viewpoint and outside the proposed course due to errant balls, the proposed golf course design is seen by the Panel to be a key issue in consideration of the proposal. Issues surrounding the viability of the proposed course as well as  safety  considerations will be dealt with in this section as of the report. In his submission to the Panel Mr Ross Watson,  golf course architect  appearing on behalf of the Proponent, indicated the proposed nine hole golf course would consist of four holes (1,7,8 and 9) south east of Thompson Road and the remaining holes (2,3,4,5 and 6) on the north west side of Thompson Road. These latter holes would be required to intertwine with the residential component with multiple tees included in the routing to provide a different experience for players wanting to play 18 holes. Mr Watson indicated the golf course has been designed to meet necessary design  safety  standards. On some holes (eg 2nd and 6th) a narrow corridor of teeing ground had been included in the design to ensure  safety  to bordering residential property and roadways, and in the case of hole 4 the proposed tee had been relocated to additional from housing behind the 4th green. The routing plan had also identified areas for wetland and water catchment corridors, and the land would be contoured to meet these needs. He indicated the proposed course measured 2605 metres (par 33) and with the various water bodies meandering throughout the site will provide a challenging layout to test golfers of all levels of skill. ... 5.3.4 GOLF COURSE  SAFETY Evidence and Submissions In his submission to the Panel Mr Watson outlined to the Panel that the proposed golf course on the subject land had been designed in accord with Technical Bulletin 70 Golf Course Developments produced by the Urban Land Institute of America in 1974 and a later publication Golf Course Developments and Real Estate in 1994 as these were seen as an industry standard. As indicated earlier in this report, the tee to hole 4 had been relocated to cater for additional housing behind the 4th green. The Panel and submittors raised a number of questions on the  safety  aspects of the course ranging from sliced balls landing outside the golf course and endangering motorists, to the  safety  of pedestrians within the development crossing the course and cyclists using the bicycle path along Thompson Road. Mr Hellsten from Greater Geelong City Council and Mr McFarlane raised the question of stray golf balls leaving the course and whether  safety  fencing was required on the boundaries of some holes. Mr Watson assured him this was not required given the design standards used. Mr Hill made comment that the nine hole course was designed to maximise real estate frontage to the course and questioned the width of fairways and the  safety  of pedestrians wandering onto the golf course. He also questioned the American design standards being used, but alternatives were not presented to the Panel or put to Mr Watson. Mr Watson indicated a range of techniques would be employed along the boundaries of the proposed private roads to alert pedestrians that they were entering the golf course. Mr MacDonald raised issue with the proposed removal of trees along the Thompson Road frontage as the trees had provided protection in the past from stray golf balls and users of the proposed cycle path would be placed in danger. He was assured by Mr Galbraith that there would be a staged removal of trees and the proposed bicycle path would meander through the trees with a  safety  fence being provided on the golf fairway side of the pathway. Issues were raised that in the case of some proposed course holes the standard width of 70 metres was not met by the design. Mr Watson provided an assurance that the design had met accepted  safety  standards and  safety  would not be compromised. The Panel were informed that perimeter security fencing would be provided along the Ballarat Road frontage of the golf course and the existing earthen mounds would be partially removed to cater for cross country stormwater flows. The option remained open to retain the mounding at the rear of the new greens and to plant on top of the mounding to increase  safety  from mishit golf balls leaving the course area. Mr Pitt SC for the Proponent in his questioning of Mr Watson indicated the Cranbourne Golf Club case at VCAT presided on by Justice Morris provided past case history of the acceptance of golf course design using the appropriate standards. The Panel acknowledges submissions that there have been changes in golfing equipment since the  safety  standards presented were prepared, but a more recent alternative was not presented or tested at the hearing. It is also noted that public liability issues will mean that it is in the golf course operators interests to ensure the course operates safely. The Panel is of the view the proposed nine hole golf course will present a challenging layout for golfers and will meet accepted  safety  standards for golf course design. ... The Development Plan must include: An Urban Design Masterplan that includes a range of lot sizes, sites for higher density development with convenient access to public open space, a bicycle and pedestrian network with links to the existing network, land to be transferred to Council for public parkland, wetland and retardation/sedimentation basins treatments, a street network that facilitates public movement through the site with a minimum of two permanent access points to Thompson Road, public parkland bounded by roads, details of all fencing, landscaping and other entrance treatments along Ballarat Road and Thompson Road, and  safety  control measures associated with golf course activities;": Greater Geelong C110 (PSA) [2006] PPV 44 (2 June 2006) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/PPV/2006/44.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/aIzoH>. 

> referring to Cranbourne Country Club Inc and Cranbourne Golf Club Inc v Casey City Council [2005] VCAT 1605. 

• *** Reference to 'Safety Standards' and 'Design Standards' - Vic Planning Panel Report: "... Churchill-Waverley Golf and Bowls Club (S41) outlined a proposal similar to the Peninsula Kingswood merger where through the merger of two clubs consolidation on one site and development of the Waverley site would enable significant upgrade of the Churchill Park Golf Course. In its submission, the Club noted: The Rowville site has been largely encroached on by development. including residential development, the Polish Social Club, SP AusNet Electrical Company (substation) and a high-density retirement village along the northern boundary, these developments combined with the limited land area available to the Club mean [Waverley Golf Club] is not able to ensure that long term golfing  safety  standards can be met. The cost to adhere to increasing  safety  requirements is weighing down the Club’s ability to provide for appropriate and safe golfing. The current course layout does not meet course design standards with respect to proximity of fairways to boundaries, distance between fairways and playing areas closely abutting the club house and related areas. The course also offers a traditional layout (two 9-hole loops) which is not attractive to potential time-poor members. No further layout changes are feasible on the current site due to the powerline easement and abutting uses. The last major reconfiguration was undertaken in 1998, when several holes were reversed due to traffic issues on Bergins Road. Further to this, the Rowville site has an area of approximately 50 hectares. Good golf course design suggests that a new contemporary 18-hole course would require an area of 70 to 75 hectares. ... One submission referred to the prospect of a financial benefit from rezoning as rewarding failure to run a business efficiently. Golf Australia and Golf Clubs emphasised the responsibility on management to cease operations if a club becomes financially unviable. The submissions and presentations added the quality and standard of a course into the definition of viability by arguing that contemporary course layout standards and  safety  margins for staff, visitors, the public and property adjoining a course were important considerations as to whether a course was viable as a playing venue. One submission (S41) drew attention to its course failing to meet modern  safety  standards for the operation of golf courses. The submitter stated: The current course layout does not meet course design standards with respect to proximity of fairways to boundaries, distance between fairways and playing areas closely abutting the club house and related areas. and that The cost to adhere to increasing  safety  requirements is weighing down the Club’s ability to provide for appropriate and safe golfing. The Committee explored this issue in the workshops with Mr Ross Perrett, a  golf course architect  with international experience. Mr Perrett told the workshop that while there was no universal standard for golf course design, there are protocols used as ‘standards’ to align fairways so as to protect players and property by the placement of vegetation and facilities. Mr Perrett said these ‘standards’ for course construction have changed and that now some courses ‘fail’ current standards as a result of the enhanced technology in golf clubs and golf balls that mean balls travel farther. He said the  safety  distance usually applied from the centreline of a fairway had progressively increased, making courses designed many years before non-compliant with current standards. To improve  safety  margins, he said some courses have reoriented fairways but this is often a temporary solution. ..": Golf Course Redevelopment SAC Part 1 Report (AC) [2019] PPV 63 (22 November 2019) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/PPV/2019/63.html>, archived at <https://archive.md/an4Rf>.

• 'Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee' (Planning Victoria) <https://engage.vic.gov.au/golf-course-redevelopment-standing-advisory-committee>, archived at <https://archive.is/qQkqP>. 

• 'Attachment 9A - Contour Golf Design' (16 August 2023) <https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/495746/Disclosure_Log_publication_-_RTI_23-24-19.PDF>, archived at <https://perma.cc/MD7M-R5AA>. -- see attachment 9A, p 57, 168.

• "Mr Benjamin Davey, Golf Course Architect from Contour Golf Design Group Pty Ltd ... 110. The applicant says the layout of the proposal has been designed in such a manner that it will be unlikely for golf balls to stray into adjacent properties with ample space on the site that acts as a suitable buffer to adjacent properties (refer to Figure 4). The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Davey that: ·            At no point does the 'hitting safety envelope' cross a property boundary.·            Given the proposed use of bay dividers, it is likely that the number of balls which might be hit outside the safety envelope would be less than 1%.·            The north-west corner of the site is approximately 520 metres from the golf driving range bays.·            The north boundary (at its closest) is approximately 320 metres from the golf driving range bays. ·            The ground slopes upward, which would slow a golf ball and will not be manicured in the manner of a normal golf course, which might otherwise enhance the roll of a golf ball. 111. The evidence of Mr Davey outlined that the distances from the golf ball landing pattern and driving range as shown in Figures 2 and 3 to the eastern property boundary was in excess of 150 metres at the range distance of 250 metres, demonstrates that the proposal has a significant buffer for stray golf balls. He considered that such a buffer, in combination with the use of range limited golf balls which would travel 10-20% less distance than standard golf balls would reduce the potential risk to livestock from stray golf balls entering into adjoining property to minimal levels. 112. We find the evidence of Mr Davey convincing and consider that together with the use of fencing along both sections of Tulum Creek and the eastern boundary, potential risks to livestock are not significant. 113. Overall, we find the proposal will be compatible with surrounding land use and will not cause unreasonable impacts.": Kazacos v Mornington Peninsula SC [2021] VCAT 671 <https://jade.io/article/820814>. 

• William Swan, 'The pursuit of safety' (Golf Course Architecture, 18 August 2020) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/the-pursuit-of-safety>, archived at <https://archive.is/uXcQ7>: "... The golfing community has a responsibility to make sure that the game is safe. It could be argued that golf’s various governing bodies could play a more active role in ensuring golf does not become more dangerous. Certainly, if the game embraced a roll-back on ball and club technology so that distances and trajectories reverted to those of the not-so-distant past, that would help reduce the dangers of being on or adjacent to golf courses. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that such action will be forthcoming. In the meantime it’s up to golfers, golf clubs and the rest of the golf industry to do everything possible to protect the game. The primary responsibility is on golfers to ensure their golf shots will not cause injury or damage, but it is also the responsibility of golf course operators (private members’, proprietary or municipal golf clubs) to create conditions in which this can be done. Between us we have a duty of care to other golfers on the course and also to those that live, drive or walk on or adjacent to the course. ... The greatest concern is always golf balls landing beyond the boundaries of the golf course. Those that live, work, walk or drive adjacent to golf courses do not necessarily know or understand the dangers involved, and it’s the golfers’ and golf clubs’ role to prevent them from being injured or their property damaged. It’s also no good saying ‘the golf course was here first’ or that ‘it didn’t used to be a problem’. Both of those may well be true, but if the problem exists now then a solution needs to be found. It would be even better if we could identify an issue before it becomes a problem, and that’s where risk assessments come in. Where dangers exist within the golf course we could argue that those at risk – the golfers – have a better chance of knowing what may befall them and, therefore, how to avoid it. That is not to say that identified risks shouldn’t be removed or mitigated, but rather that this is usually more easily achieved. Again, a full risk assessment of the golf course allows clubs to proactively address any potential issues and prevent future incidents."

• ** "4. For at least 10 years the club has been aware of a potential problem with golf ball nuisance associated with the 5th hole.  This problem was relatively minor when the adjoining land was used for a market garden.  But this land had been earmarked for residential use for many years; and it was inevitable that someday the land would be subdivided for this use. ... 21. What is just and fair in the circumstances?  This question needs to be determined in the context of the wider law concerning golf ball escape.  I was referred to various cases on this issue including Lester-Travers v City of Frankston[5], Champagne View Pty Ltd v Shearwater Resort Management Pty Ltd[6], Challen v McLeod Country Golf Club[7] and the panel report to Amendments C38 and C41 to the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme[8].  In the Champagne View case Gillard J quoted from the decision of Sheppard AJA in an unreported decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal being Campbelltown Golf Club Limited v Winton[9].  In that case Sheppard AJA commented: What was required was that the golf course should so adjust its activities as not to interfere unreasonably with the peaceable enjoyment by residents of their land.  At the same time, the residents, bordering as they did a golf course, had to accept the fact that the game of golf was going to be played on land adjoining their properties and that it could be expected that from time to time some golf balls might come on to their land.  But what they were not bound to accept was the situation such as was suffered by the respondents in which their property was peppered with golf balls on a daily basis thus posing a threat, not only to the respondents’ property but also to their physical safety.  The golf course was obliged so as to construct the hole as to divert balls hit normally away from their property.  This could be done by re-siting the direction of the hole or by appropriate screens, whether natural or artificial, or a combination of both as indeed has apparently happened. What is also clear is that these principles apply regardless of whether the golf course exists before the residential development or not. 22. The law of nuisance applicable to golf ball escape is not merely of theoretical advantage to an entity such as Camden Green.  It is also of practical advantage.  This is because Camden Green could sue the golf course and obtain relief, which might involve the closure of the 5th hole unless and until it was realigned.  Having said this, a town planning solution to the problem may provide even greater benefits to Camden Green, because it would avoid the need to take court action, with its attendant risks, would provide greater certainty and might avoid a solution (such as a huge fence) that might have adverse amenity implications impacting upon Camden Green or its successors in title.  But the fact that Camden Green would benefit from a town planning solution to the problem does not mean that the clubs should be relieved of the primary responsibility to ensure that the risks posed by golf ball escape are acceptable.  Thus, I believe that an appropriate town planning solution should be based upon the principle that two-thirds of the cost associated with a proper solution to the problem be met by the clubs.  The fact that the subdivider may be a large and profitable company, engaged in a profitable subdivision, is not relevant.  Rather the key is identifying the activity that actually causes the nuisance:  which is the playing of golf, not subdividing land or residing in a house. 23. There was much discussion and evidence about the changes that were required to the golf course in order to produce an acceptable outcome.  In relation to the 5th hole, there was some difference of opinion as to the better location of the green; but, apart from this question, there was general agreement.  Certainly there was agreement that the design prepared by Mr Clayton for the 5th hole (“the Clayton design”) would address the problem of golf ball nuisance and, if this was implemented, all that would be required by way of fencing would be a normal cyclone fence of 1.8 metres height.  It may be that the Clayton design would be enhanced by the erection of some offset bunding along the eastern side of the hole, which would provide screening, some protection, and a head start for planting.  However even if this bunding is not implemented, I am satisfied that the Clayton design for the 5th hole will produce a satisfactory outcome.  It has been estimated that the implementation of this design for the 5th hole would be approximately $130,000.  In essence, I propose that the subdivider pay the cost of these works. 24. The real dispute between the parties involved consequential changes to the 6th and 7th holes, which might be rendered necessary by changes to the 5th hole.  There was considerable difference of opinion as to whether these changes could be confined to the 6th hole or whether they also required changes to the 7th hole. These differences involved matters of safety and course integrity; and it would have been tempting for the tribunal to have sought to resolve these differences by assuming the role of some master golf designer. But to take this course would have involved a number of difficulties, the most significant one of which is that it would be wrong in principle: it should be for the clubs themselves to decide the layout of their course, provided the external perimeter is safe. Assuming that the clubs decide that both the 6th hole and the 7th hole need to be realigned, the additional cost is likely to be in the order of $150,000 to $250,000 above the cost of the changes to the 5th hole.  (In the present context, I find it unnecessary to be more precise than these estimates.)  Hence, applying what I regard as a fair distribution of the burden, it is not unreasonable that the clubs accept responsibility for the cost of making whatever alterations it thinks fit to the 6th and 7th holes.  Given this there is no need to make findings about what changes are necessary to these holes. 25. Because the preferred solution will involve the clubs, and a commitment by the clubs to implement works, the nature of the condition to be included in the permit will need to reflect this.  Further, it will need to include a fallback position to address the circumstance where the clubs do not agree to realign the 5th hole.  Although I would regard it as unsatisfactory, I think the fallback position should be the construction of the Ryan fence.  However it seems quite obvious to me that both the clubs and the subdivider will be immeasurably better off if there is an agreement, as invited by the amended condition, so as to address the problem of golf ball escape by course design.  In order to promote certainty, I propose to fix the cost of the works to the 5th hole at $130,000 so that the permit condition does not create an open ended obligation.": Cranbourne Country Club Inc and Cranbourne Golf Club Inc v Casey City Council [2005] VCAT 1605 <https://jade.io/article/744992>; See also, Cranbourne Country Club Inc and Cranbourne Golf Club Inc v Casey City Council [2005] VCAT 1636 <https://jade.io/article/744998>. 

• Planning permits - proposed condition to limit liability from stray golf balls - deleted: "2. Condition 3 on the Permit requires the preparation of a Section 173 agreement requiring a purchaser of the larger of the two newly-created lots to acknowledge that the lot is in close proximity to a golf course and may be subject to golf balls landing on the land.  Condition 3 continues that the terms of the agreement are to include “Acknowledgement is to be in relation to any liability that may accrue from damage to person or property from such an event occurring” 3. The condition is opposed by the Applicant on the basis that (inter alia) it would shift or reduce liability from the Drouin Golf and Country Club (“the Club”) should an incident arise, other adjacent sites are not incumbered by the same type of restriction, and the Club has options to reduce the potential for golf balls to enter adjacent lots through the introduction of buffer areas on its land.  The Applicant’s position is that the condition should be removed entirely or, as a fallback, that the condition just reflect that the subject land is next to the golf course.  Alternatively, the Council and Club submitted that the condition serves a useful advisory function for future purchasers of the land and could/would have some role in limiting liability for the Club should there be an incident such as injury to a person or damage to property from a misdirected golf ball. ... 10. It is obvious that there is a risk of misdirected golf balls landing on the subject land with the potential to cause injury to persons and animals (eg. pets) and/or damage to property. The Club has the primary responsibility to ensure that the risks posed by straying golf balls are acceptable. It is contended that an agreement acknowledging the presence of the golf course may have some implications in a civil proceeding should injury or damage occur from golf club activities. That may be even more likely with inclusion of the provision sought by the Council - “Acknowledgement is to be in relation to any liability that may accrue from damage to person or property from such an event occurring”.  I agree with Mr Dyson that provision seeks to shift the onus of responsibility from the Club.  That is, it tends toward a situation that is seeking to relieve the Club of its primary responsibility to ensure that the risks posed are acceptable.  I am not persuaded that is a fair outcome in the circumstances of the subject site.  Deleting that final sentence from Condition 3 would leave the agreement stating that the subject land is next to a golf course but I think that it obvious and the condition serves little purpose. 11. Thus, I am not persuaded to retain Condition 3 on Permit 04172.  The proximity of the golf course to residential lots means that the Club will need to review the risks associated with its activities and take measures it deems appropriate to minimise its risk and liability. ...": Dyson v Baw Baw Shire Council [2005] VCAT 2008 <https://jade.io/article/745400>. 

• "22. Mr O’Farrell submitted the golf course is responsible addressing the impact of stray golf balls and can solve the potential nuisance and safety issues arising from errant golf balls onto the review site by relocating the 16th tee and other works.  He referred to a report prepared by Tony Cashmore submitted at the request of the Responsible Authority during the processing of the permit application that explains options available.  Relying on case law and Mr Diedun’s evidence, Mr O’Farrell submitted there is no basis to require a buffer on the review site to address a matter that is the MVGC’s responsibility. 23.  Mr Diedun’s evidence also referred to an altered lot layout as being unlikely to resolve the problem of frequent errant golf balls from the 16th tee, a risk he said the subdivision cannot respond to. ... 29. However, I doubt the proposed rear fencing treatment will provide some residents with sufficient privacy with respect to the use of their secluded open spaces and may give rise to pressures for higher fence treatments once the subdivision is completed. 30. Consequently, I find the layout of the proposed subdivision is not an acceptable response to the features and orientation of the review site including solar access to some lots and the presence of the golf course.  A modified layout with a siezeable yield can be achieved and be more responsive to the orientation of the land and relationship to the golf course.  An example would be a southern access road with several roads extending from Yuille Street to allow more lots to have an east-west orientation than north-south.  This may not prevent the need either for modifications to the 16th hole or high cyclone-wire style fencing but the visual impact of any high fencing would be much more acceptable adjacent to the south side of an access road than, for example, if such fencing was on the rear fence line of the proposed lots. ...": Moninbri Developments v Melton Shire Council [2011] VCAT 1528 <https://jade.io/article/683005>. 

• "42. The review site’s abuttal to the golf course has given rise to concerns regarding the potential impacts of errant golf balls.   The applicant submitted that, due to the layout of the golf course, the review site is well removed from any fairway or a direct line to any target green.  It was further submitted that the section of the golf course adjacent to the site is used for service access and is populated by dense scrub vegetation that will act as screen.  The applicant also relied upon Tribunal decisions which have addressed this issue.  In the matter of Dyson v Baw Baw,[5] the Tribunal stated: 10 It is obvious that there is a risk of misdirected golf balls landing on the subject land with the potential to cause injury to persons and animals (eg. pets) and/or damage to property. The Club has the primary responsibility to ensure that the risks posed by straying golf balls are acceptable. It is contended that an agreement acknowledging the presence of the golf course may have some implications in a civil proceeding should injury or damage occur from golf club activities. That may be even more likely with inclusion of the provision sought by the Council - “Acknowledgement is to be in relation to any liability that may accrue from damage to person or property from such an event occurring”. I agree with Mr Dyson that provision seeks to shift the onus of responsibility from the Club. That is, it tends toward a situation that is seeking to relieve the Club of its primary responsibility to ensure that the risks posed are acceptable. I am not persuaded that is a fair outcome in the circumstances of the subject site. Deleting that final sentence from Condition 3 would leave the agreement stating that the subject land is next to a golf course but I think that it obvious and the condition serves little purpose. [sic] 11     Thus, I am not persuaded to retain Condition 3 on Permit 04172. The proximity of the golf course to residential lots means that the Club will need to review the risks associated with its activities and take measures it deems appropriate to minimise its risk and liability. 43. While the same principles would apply here, I agree with the applicant that that layout of the golf course, in conjunction with the relatively dense vegetation proximate to the review site, means that the actual risk of ball strike by errant golf balls is low.": Waringah Heights Nominees Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2018] VCAT 410 <https://jade.io/article/577090>. 

• 'Planning guidelines for golf course redevelopment' (Vic Planning, June 2020) <https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/guides/all-guides/golf-course-redevelopment>. 

• Canada: David L Moote, 'Golf Shot Spray Analysis' (Communique - Letter, 5 October 2020) <https://www.collingwood.ca/sites/default/files/devcomattachments/2020-10-05_moote_wyldewood_creek_dev-cranberry_10th_hole.golf_shot_spray_study_0.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/3XEJ-TYSR>.  

• David L Moote, 'Golf Shot Spray Safety Analysis: Lora Bay Golf Club, Thornbury, ON' (Letter, 27 August 2023) <https://www.thebluemountains.ca/sites/default/files/2023-10/Golf%20Shot%20Spray%20Safety%20Analysis%20-%20Lora%20Bay%20Phase%204B.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9YWY-VV5E> -- see within for adopted safety specifications and guidelines. 

• David L Moote, 'Recommendations for Cranberry Golf Course (Munroe) Enhancement Project Holes 3-4-5-7-10-11' (Letter, 20 September 2021) <https://www.collingwood.ca/sites/default/files/devcomattachments/sep_20_2021_trees_enhancement_moote_report_recns_20092021.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/TWN7-9MC9>. 

• 'The Design Process' (Scottish Association of Golf Course Architects, Webpage) <https://www.scotagca.co.uk/operating-standards/design-process/>, archived at <https://archive.md/yDVOH>. 

• Muskoka Golf Course Research Advisory Committee, 'Best Management Practices and Guidelines for the Development and Review of Golf Course Proposals' (Gartner Lee Limited, September 2001) <https://www.muskokawatershed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/GolfCourse1.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/ZAS9-N9YS>.

• * Tree planning, design, safety, use: 

> Paul Albanese, 'To Tree or Not to Tress' (2015) Spring Course Conditions 15 <https://listings.lib.msu.edu/couco/2015spr.pdf#page=17>, archived at <https://perma.cc/C5NS-YJQD>. 

> John C Fech, 'Going out on a limb: Trees play an integral role in any golf course environment, but superintendents need to make sure they provide more rewards than risks at their facilities' (2011) 79(5) Golf Course Management 42-50 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/2011may42.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/CP7J-STSR>. 

> Tom Moraghan, 'Tree Talk' (Golf Course Industry, 10 November 2008) <https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/tree-talk--tournament-insider-/>, archived at <https://archive.md/ntYs9>.

> David A Oatis, 'The Truth About Trees' (2006) 44(3) USGA Green Section Record 22-25 <https://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/?file=/2000s/2006/060522.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/MK6Y-EJCX>. 

> Jami Pfirrman, 'Before you cut down that tree ...' (2004) 60(2) Golfdom 20 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/2004feb20.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/VTM3-X9B8>. 

> Gill Mitchell, 'Arbor care: Hazard trees represent a liability for a golf course' (1994) April Thru the Green 3 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/ttgnc/article/1994apr3.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5WBP-2873>. 

> * Raymond Korbodo, 'Changes in Managing Trees' (1982) Conference Proceedings: 53rd International Turfgrass Conference & Show 33-41 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/itgcs/article/1982jan33.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/C8AR-5PPY>. 

• Lightning, safety: 

> James C Kozlowski, 'When lightning strikes ... Are you liable?' (1993) 5(4) Golf Course News 43, 48 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/1993apr43d.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/3NKM-MC4P>. 

> Vern Putney, 'Lightning will always present major problems despite technological advances' (1991) 3(9) Golf Course News 13 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/1991sep35a.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/7PUD-J3LD>. 

> Gary Ritell, 'When Lightning Strikes' (1991) 21(5) Tee to Green 1, 4 <https://d.lib.msu.edu/teegr/186/OBJ/view>, archived at <https://perma.cc/2PT2-LFG9>. 

> Ian Meklinksy, 'Lighning Liability a Tricky Issue at Golf Courses' (1997) 9(8) Golf Course News 41-2 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/1997aug41b.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/D52D-GAYU>. 

> 'Lightning Protection: A Necessity - not an option' (1997) 28(6) Hole Notes 5,7,9, 25 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/holen/article/1997aug5.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/L883-DSML>. 

> ** Marvin M Frudenlund, 'Ideas to share: Lighting on the golf course: What constitutes 'prudent care'?' (1985) 53(8) Golf Course Management 102-3 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/1985aug102.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/6N5P-8ZVS>. 

> Robert D Ochs, 'Of lightning and liability: Attention to details can help minimize the risk of injury, and hence the risk of liability' (1985) 53(5) Golf Course Management 68, 70, 74 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/1985may68.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/37ZW-CB62>. 

> Bruce R Williams, '"Lightning Can Strike Without Warning"' (1984) 20(7) GreenMaster 17 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/grnma/article/1984sep17.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/F2K3-RHCN>. 

> Bob Lauder, 'Lightning' (1967) 35(5) The Golf Superintendent 21, 23-4 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/1967may21.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5E9W-5ETL>. 

• Water Hazards:

> Robert D Ochs, 'Water is a hazard: On the golf course, the beauty of water can be undeniable - but so can the risk it presents beyond the game' (1985) 53(4) Golf Course Management 66-84 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/1985apr66.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/8VNG-9YZ9>. 

• Golf club design, buffer zones: 

> Natalie Bird, 'Buffer Zones and the Recreational Golf Sector: A Negligence Case Content Analysis' (PhD Thesis, University of Arkansas Fayetteville, July 2020) <https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5370&context=etd>. 

> Natalie Bird and Merry Moiseichik, 'Buffer Zones Through the Lens of Golf: A Negligence Case Content Analysis' (2024) 34(1) Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport 77-106 <https://journals.indianapolis.iu.edu/index.php/jlas/article/view/27261/25451>; 99: "... Identify areas where buffer zones should be located. Although golfer shot pat-terns cannot be predicted, drawing inferences from gathered customer information can be used to identify areas where buffer zones are necessary. For example, age and experience  typically  impact  how  far  a  player  hits  their  driver.  If  most  golfers  on  a  course are seniors who play regularly, it can be inferred these players are not likely to hit a tee shot into a resident’s yard that is 280 yards from the tee box and far from the center of the fairway. Likewise, if the same course has a large population of inexpe-rienced young adults, the same yard may be a common landing area for errant shots. "

> Natalie Bird and Nicholas Schlereth, 'A Case "Fore" Buffer Zones' (2020) 12(1) Journal of Applied Sport Management 36 <https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=jasm>. 

• "Reconstruction, restoration or better still renovation are absolutely essential – professionally conceived, created, designed and managed to ensure the correct way forward in the long term and to ensure success. The combination with modern golfing equipment and its associated technology in clubs and balls, and perhaps a fitter human body, has brought many courses to their knees. The best players, amateur sometimes, but certainly professional, may hit the ball over 300 yards and mostly in the air on a consistent basis, but many of the rest of us don’t do that.  Some may hit it further than others but not always in the right direction and the dispersion of the ball relative to safety of golf courses is a great concern for professional golf course architects. A clamber for longer and longer golf courses is evident. Safety and security is, therefore, a bigger problem than most care to recognise or admit and which would be an essential part of any appraisal of any golf course in putting together a renovation programme. Lengthening the course may not be the answer, it certainly is not alone and not at the expense of the ruination of its tradition and the strategic appeal of its design. Did making Augusta National much longer defend it against Tiger? I wonder. This was only one solution and perhaps not the right one. Usually, it is preferable to look at the routing of the golf course, then create a better balance of each nine holes to expose golfers to a more interesting shot, variety and envisage an enhanced use of the original land or perhaps some additional areas that may be available. The aim, surely, is to create an appealing rhythm in the holes, leading into a rollercoaster of emotion for the player and some satisfaction when he or she steps off the 18th green. Improving the course’s safety can not be ignored. Golf balls hurt! As an integral part of any renovation exercise an audit of the holes needs to be undertaken and revisions made in terms of safety, should risks not be considered to be acceptably manageable. Once the overall design has been considered with the safety in mind, then the components of the golf course need to be evaluated. ...": 'Howard Swan: My principles of golf course design' (The Golf Business, 25 October 2011) <https://thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2011/10/howard-swan-my-principles-of-golf-course-design/>, archived at <https://archive.is/pm9DR>. 

• * R&A, 'Golf Course Condition and Playability: Sustainability Guidelines and Support for Clubs': <https://assets.randa.org/c42c7bf4-dca7-00ea-4f2e-373223f80f76/e6bdf791-b035-4cbc-89c9-a9ef12d81267/Course%20Condition%20and%20Playability%20Guidelines.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/V7C4-7E8C>: "This Report aims to support Golf Clubs to: ... Develop best practice guidelines to manage course condition against quality standards, for: i. Teeing areas ii. Fairways iii. First cut rough iii. Bunkers iv. Green aprons ..."

• * PGA National Property Owners Association Design Review Manual - Guidelines (PGA Property Owners Association, rev ed, 2024) <https://www.pga-poa.com/documents/Searchable_ARC_DRM_rev_2024.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/EA3C-7RSD>. 

• ** Industry views - increasing and more onerous safety considerations with increase in driving distance - residential golf courses: ".. Technological advances in golf equipment have resulted in the golf ball travelling greater distances, which in turn demands more land for the golf course and greater setbacks for the housing. Safety is essential for community living and whist the incidence of personal injury is very low, property damage is quite common, particularly adjacent to existing courses that predated the surrounding real estate. Whilst golf authorities and golf architects are reluctant to set arbitrary limits for setbacks they have generally increased in response to changes in technology and the trend towards a more litigious society. Whereas 20 years ago the Urban Land Institute of USA recommended 45 meters as a desirable setback for real estate boundaries from the centreline of the golf hole, most architects would now recommend 70 meters. Internal safety setbacks are generally 60 meters between centrelines. The golf layout must respond to the land form and it is desirable for the residential land to sit above the golf course. Golf holes are generally laid out in pairs to optimise the usage. This improves the views, increases safety and allows the golf course to accommodate stormwater drainage. As the majority of golfers are right handed and slice the ball, it is best to place the real estate on the left side of the hole.": Ross Perrett, 'Residential Golf Courses' (InsideGolf, 27 January 2011) <https://www.insidegolf.com.au/golf_industry/golf-architecture/residential-golf-courses/>, archived at <https://archive.is/tiyE5>. 

> * See also, Ross Perett, 'Residential Golf Courses' (2011) Feb Inside Golf <http://tpgolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Architecture_Feb_InsideGolf.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/HL95-4HVS>, also archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20210416055134/http://tpgolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Architecture_Feb_InsideGolf.pdf>. 

• "... Restorations, in the context of golf, are a relatively new occurrence. There is an increasing mainstream appreciation of the classic courses and their original architects – particularly those from the golden age. The idea of restoring courses to their former glory is a romantic one that is appealing to many clubs. Some restore faithfully, while others are closer to redesigns under the guise of the restoration trend. However, not all old courses are great, nor worth restoring. Then there are others that are worth restoring, but cannot be, due to modern constraints such as safety. ... Last, “style restorations”, where a particular look is restored without the strategic intent or routing. This approach may be required where fundamental changes to the routing cannot be restored, or where new holes are required – for example, to address safety issues. Any new or non-original work is therefore created in a style sympathetic with the original architect and other original holes. Understanding an architect’s style can be assisted by studying their work elsewhere, however not all approaches were the same everywhere, so specific research into their intent for the individual course is required. ... A Case for Redesign: Not all old courses are great and restoration is not always the answer. They can be restrictive and in some circumstances unnecessarily costly. For many courses, it is not the most suitable approach – even some of the classics. There are several reasons to favour a redesign over a restoration. Firstly, the course may never have been very good. Or it lacks a clear era that is worth restoring to. Substantial changes over the years may mean the layout is unrecognisable from the original, and it might be too expensive or unnecessary to completely rebuild it. Perhaps there were fundamental issues with the original routing that led to those changes. There might be safety issues needing to be addressed, or parts of the course to be redeveloped for the financial security of the club which requires substantial changes to the routing. Some or all of these factors might prohibit a restoration. ... Benefits of redesign can include: increasing the interest and strategy of current holes; improved conditioning by addressing agronomic issues and incorporating technical advancements; compliance with current safety standards with sufficient setbacks from boundaries and between holes; reducing water consumption through more efficient irrigation schemes; and responding to changes in equipment technology (if deemed necessary), among many others. ...": Scott Champion, 'Restore or Redesign? A case for course improvement' (SAGCA, 20 April 2018) <https://sagca.com.au/2018/04/restore-or-redesign-a-case-for-course-improvement/>, archived at <https://archive.is/823F1>. 

• "... Golf holes vary greatly in length, but the widths of the corridors through which they pass generally do not. This width is determined by safety standards. As concerns over lawsuits have increased, so has the standard width of golf holes. At the tee, the width of the corridor is usually 150 feet. The corridor then widens out as one approaches the green or the landing area. Richardson recommends that the corridors be at least 350 feet.31 Different designers also use different lengths from the tee to their landing areas. Not long ago this length used to be 750 feet, but with advances in both club and ball technology most designers now use 800 feet or 267 yards as their standard landing area. Some architects have even begun using 900 feet.32 On par five holes, most designers use 600 feet from the tee shot landing area to the second shot landing area. With this knowledge about length and width, it is easy to create templates to help in laying out the golf course. After determining the scale of the base map to be used to route the golf course, one can simply draw out scaled pieces of paper that represent the proper width and length of a tee shot. First, draw a circle that has a diameter of 150 feet to represent the teeing area. Second, measure out 800 feet in one direction to find the center of the landing area. Third, draw a circle with a three hundred foot diameter around this point. For second shots, repeat this process, but both circles will be the same width (three hundred feet) and the distances should vary. After copying these onto cardstock or translucent paper, one can easily cut them out and attach them at the landing area with a metal fastener. This allows the template to be rotated to create dog legs. For par threes, the same process applies, but rather than measuring out 800 feet one measures out somewhere between 300 feet and 750 feet, the range of lengths of par threes.": William G Smith, 'Fore!: Teaching Golf Course Design in a Landscape Architecture Curriculum' (Master of Landscape Architecture Thesis, University of Georgia, 2005) 57-8 <https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/smith_william_g_200505_mla.pdf>. 

• ** (good analysis of literature, 1999) "... Equally important to the golf components in the routing process is safety precautions for golfers, and adjacent homeowners if the course incorporates real estate development within its site boundaries. Although the guarantee of absolute safety on a golf course is impossible, there are measures that will help to reduce the danger to a minimum. In particular, appropriate safety setback dimensions within golf comdors are necessary. While each site requires individual attention due to variations such as wind, topography and vegetation, there are general standards which have been identified that should be accounted for during the routing of golf holes (Graves and Cornish, 1998). Along each golf hole comdor, two notable architects state that a width of approximately 96 metres is necessary from one edge of the rough to the other end of the rough for safety (Graves and Cornish, 1998). However, since it is unsure to what extent they mean by rough (i.e. primary, secondary, etc.), the diagram provided by Muirhead and Rando expands on these setback requirements (Figure 3). A 45 metre minimum distance should be provided from the centerline of each hole to the golf property line, while an additional minimum of 10.5 metres should be required for building setbacks (Hurdzan, 1996; Muirhead and Rando, 1994). Similarly, when parallel golf holes exist, a minimum separation distance of 70 metres is required between their centerlines, unless there is added protection between holes (i.e. trees, mounds, lakes, etc.) when the distance can be reduced to 60 metres. This distance may be shortened even -further at greens and tees to 50 metres, provided there is enclosing landscape protection between the two elements (Doak, 1992; Graves and Cornish, 1998; Kains, 1996). A minimum 45 metre safety buffer is also needed from the back of the green to the front of the next tee; any length greater than this will have a tiring effect on golfers who walk the course (Hurdzan, 1996; Fogg, 1990; Kains, 1996) As well, since studies have shown that 92% of golf shots from the tee fall within 15 degrees of either side of the intended line of play to an aiming point, architects are well advised to allow added safety from - an approximate 30 degree teeing angle from each tee for astray shots (Graves and Cornish, 1998; Hurdzan, 1996). ... There are also a few other important notes with regard to golf course safety through the routing process. For any out-of-bounds areas (i.e. housing developments), it is most safe to locate these behind holes, so golfers can play up to them (Ross, 1996). However, there are many times when these areas must be located alongside golf fairways. Since approximately 80 percent of golfers are right-handed and 80 percent of this group slices, it is a sood idea for the most part to keep the out-of-bounds along the left side of holes. By locating the tees more on the left side of the holes near the out-of-bounds (especially those for high-handicap golfers) and directing the angles of play toward the right, the safety for adjacent property owners will be increased @oak, 1992; Hurdzan, 1996; Klein, 1997). As well, an out-of-bounds should never be located on the inner side of a hole (i-e. dogleg hole) that is adjacent to another hole, as this creates a potentially dangerous situation when golfers are off-line and slice into the adjacent fainvay (Kains, 1996). In relation to these previous ideas, an architect can aIso increase safety for a certain area when necessary by placing a tough hazard in its vicinity. For example, if one side of a green is more prone to golfers' balls fiom an adjacent fairway, placing a bunker or water hazard will increase safety by that green as the players from the other fairway will play away horn the hazard (Thomas, [I9271 1997). Similarly, when contouring is incorporated into the fairways, their slopes can often be designed to help contain the ball safely within the golf corridor of the hole (Hurdzan, 1996). Within this section, I would also like to discuss the planning for cart paths within a golf course site. Regardless if they are 2 paved or an organic surface, paths should be approximately 2.5 metres in width to accommodate one-way traffic, and expanded as required to include parking pull-out areas at tees and greens. (Beard, 1982; Hurdzan, 1996; Kains, 1996). Their layout should follow an eye appealing, organic pattern of horizontal sweeping curves, that flow with the contours and appear as unobtrusive as possible within the landscape (Graves and Cornish, 1998; Jones, 1988; Klein, 1997). While they may only be located in certain areas on some courses, it is a good long-term investment for the club to have a continuous path system throughout as it wiU help to preserve the health of the turfgrass on the course (Heuer, 1980). In the process, however, details must be directed to their safe installation, including a maximum slope of 11%, avoiding sharp curves, and using protective rails and turnouts in areas of potential danger (Graves and Cornish, 1998; Hurdzan, 1996; Kains, 1996). ..." : John Rinaldi, 'Multi-user and environmental golf course architecture: A process for design evaluation' (MLA Thesis, University of Guelph, 1999) 15-18 et seq <https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/items/d2efbf64-f7d1-4987-bcee-636bb938e704>, archived at <https://perma.cc/FV28-GNGA> -- see also, analysis of design safety for individual holes, integrated housing on course. 

• " ... The site assessment conducted by WellPlayed identified many improvement opportunities to tees, paths, greens, fairways, drainage, safety (including errant golf balls), and course strategy and layout. Improvement works to the golf course should continue in a planned manner, on an annual basis and with a focus on the following priorities as identified in the new Concept Plan: • Bunkers – improve sand quality, depth, drainage, consistency and maintenance • Drainage – fairways and other areas • Fairways – continue conversion of fairways to warm-season couch grass • Greens and surrounds – reconstruction or resurfacing of areas • Paths – installation of new concrete paths • Tees – reconstruction of existing tees or construction of new tees • Safety – resolve player accessibility issues and monitor errant golf balls. ... 4.1.2.2 Driving Range The driving range is performing very well. It received good levels of satisfaction across its attributes and customers are loyal to it. The site assessment identified the restricted ‘aisle width’ behind the bays as detracting from amenity comfort. The following improvements have been identified in the new Concept Plan: • Significant upgrading of the driving range and supporting infrastructure to contemporary standards and an increase to 25 driving bays (currently 20) o 12 x ‘premium bays’, 11 x traditional bays and 2 x coaching bays • New orientation of the building and bays to a centralised outfield axis • Retention of existing fencing on the southern boundary and installation of new safety netting (12m in height) to the eastern and northern boundaries o Subject to assessment from additional trajectory study • Improved outfield drainage, presentation, targets and lighting • Improved visual connection with the golf shop.": 'Morack Public Golf Course Strategic Plan - City of Whitehorse' (WellPlayed Golf Business Consultancy, December 2016) 21-3 <https://whitehorse.infocouncil.biz/Open/2017/03/CO_20170320_MIN_546_files/CO_20170320_MIN_546_Attachment_2997_1.PDF>, archived at <https://perma.cc/XNM4-VECA>. 

• "... The Contour Golf Design Group Report (September 2020), appended to the Golf Business Advisory Services (GBAS) Report23, assesses the potential of the Kingswood site to return to use as a viable golf course. To provide a safe course, the earlier Ogilvy Report (2013) outlined that a redesigned course with a reduced length/par of 5170 metre/ par 68 (down from 6045 metre/ par 72) would be required. Commenting on this, the Contour Report stated:24 It has to be remembered that within ten kilometres of the Kingswood site are nine golf courses of very high quality and several that are amongst the highest rated in the world. For a par 68 or 69 course that is only 5200 odd metres long to be successful in that environment, it would need to be unique and excellent. This would most likely require a complete rebuild of the course. According to submissions and evidence, it is not economical to re-establish the site to modern playing standards as a golf course including with design precautions for the safety of neighbouring residents and properties. The Contour Report estimated the costs of a course rebuild would be in the order of $6-8M and would include provision of high boundary fencing.25 There was no contrary evidence. ... ": 'Draft Kingston Planning Scheme Amendment C199king, and associated development plan and permit Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment, Dingley Village - Advisory Committee Report: Volume 1' (Planning Panels Victoria, 18 March 2022) 41 <https://www.planningpanels.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/682024/Kingswood-Golf-Course-Redevelopment-SAC-Report-Volume-1.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/2QRF-7WYG>; See also, Volume 2: <https://www.planningpanels.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/682025/Kingswood-Golf-Course-Redevelopment-SAC-Report-Volume-2-.pdf>. 

• "... The golf course improvements will specifically improve greens, surrounds, tees, fairways, bunkers, drainage, safety (errant balls), ecology/conservation/biodiversity and revegetation, and course furniture and signage. ...": 'Frankston City Council - Centenary Park Golf Course Master Plan Review, Master Plan Report Draft v4' (Crafter + Mogford, May 2021) <https://hdp-au-prod-app-frank-engage-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/6116/2795/4261/CM_-_Frankston_City_Council_Centenary_Park_MP_report_v4.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/G84R-NHG6>. 

• Tony Hyland, 'Flexible design solutions – Providing A Freedom of Choice' (SAGCA, 4 May 2018) <https://sagca.com.au/2018/05/flexible-design-solutions-providing-a-freedom-of-choice/>, archived at <https://archive.md/UfMMu>. 

• "... Reconstruction is usually associated with external factors that dictate the need for significant change to the existing course. Examples include boundary road widening, boundary safety issues (requiring greater clearances between residential and main play areas), relocation of residential components, or addition of commercial areas within the earlier development. Due to many factors, not the least of which may be the need to accommodate millions of cubic metres of fill material within the old course area, often the reconstructed course bears little or no resemblance to the old. Construction cost may equal the costs of new construction. ...": Ted Parslow, 'Period of Change: Upgrading Asia 30 Years On' (SAGCA, 1 May 2018) <https://sagca.com.au/2018/05/period-of-change-upgrading-asia-30-years-on/>, archived at <https://archive.md/GFqan>. 

• SAGCA Course Safety Guidelines - reference to within: "... Importantly, during the early years a comprehensive study was undertaken concerning golf and the environment in order to counter the anti-golf course propaganda seen in the media. Paul Mogford, a young landscape architect with an interest in golf design and later to be a member of the Society, was appointed as the Society’s Environmental Research Officer and a considerable volume of information was produced and evaluated during discussions at meetings over years to follow. Issues such as the use of grey water, generally limiting water usage, the benefits of wetlands, the contrast between the negative perceptions held by anti-golf and some environmental groups and the benefits of golf courses were discussed in detail and, where relevant, acted upon by members in their design work. In 1994 a full colour brochure entitled ‘Golf Courses – Benefits to the Community and the Environment’ – was prepared and distributed to golf clubs and other organisations. Course safety guidelines were also considered in detail over several meetings. ...": Ted Parslow, '1990 Revisited - Early Days of the SAGCA' (SAGCA, 2 May 2018) <https://sagca.com.au/2018/05/1990-revisited-early-days-of-the-sagca/>, archived at <https://archive.md/rCW8G>. 

• '‘Distance Insights Project’ Survey of EIGCA members' (Golf Business News, 16 September 2020) <https://golfbusinessnews.com/news/opinion/distance-insights-project-survey-of-eigca-members/>, archived at <https://archive.is/Q1nMd>. 

• 'EIGCA members support measures to reduce hitting distance in golf' (Golf Business News, 8 September 2020) <https://golfbusinessnews.com/news/courses/eigca-members-support-measures-to-reduce-hitting-distance-in-golf/>, archived at <https://archive.md/kXP1Y>. 

• James Edwards, 'Boundary Safety' (LinkedIn, 9 May 2016) <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/boundary-safety-james-edwards-eigca>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250101123208/https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/boundary-safety-james-edwards-eigca>: "... Most golf clubs thankfully recognise that they must act fast whilst the relationship with the neighbour remains positive.  The first port of call is to gain advice from a qualified, experienced Golf Course Architect who will be able to visit the site immediately and report on the situation.  This reporting should go a long way to appeasing the concerns of the neighbour, proving to the council that the right response was actioned by the golf club and most importantly, the methods for safety containment are being considered.  Believe it or not, modern guidelines for golf course design have come and gone as the governing bodies realise that no parameter is truly ‘safe’.  Every situation is now being looked upon in context to their respective site constraints and solutions are without doubt the order of the day before any type of prosecution.  The measurement from the fairway centre line to the sensitive boundary is critical and will immediately determine whether there is sufficient space between the points.  Our safety measurement recommended check comes at 200m down the centre axis line with a 60m offset to the boundary.  If we achieve 60m or above, we deem this to be reasonably safe.  60m or below and we will automatically look at golf ball containment methods such as additional fencing, planting and tee/axis reorientation.  If we don’t find a solution with these methods then we will look at the more costly option of rerouting the golf hole. It is important to note that our findings involve numbers we deem to be reasonable and will be used by most GCA’s.  As golf ball and driver technology improves, we must all understand that these distances will vary dramatically depending on the elevation of the tee, the hole and prevailing winds.  The slice-side for right-handers is commonly known as the danger side and consideration of this must be factored into any safety measurement.  If we applied maximum margins to most of today’s new build golf courses, we would never get agreement to go ahead and if we analysed the world’s best courses we wouldn’t be allowed to play them anymore.  We must therefore look at alternative containing methods for safety to keep our game free of health and safety reports. ..." -- see illustrations within. 

> Query, where setback less than 60m, whether golf ball containment methods such as additional fencing, planting and tee/axis reorientation, have been implemented, and to what effect. 

• "... Some of the main health and safety concerns at Belleisle Golf Course is the relationship between features and adjacent holes and where golf holes play close to the course boundaries and properties i.e. the 1st green sits tight to the 2nd tees, 4th green and 5th tees which is a congested area. The right of the 9th, 14th and 15th are also concerning. The 14th and 15th tee shot has property on the right ‘slice’ side, the 18 th white tee is also extremely close the 15th on the left side, as is the 17th green. The 16th green is also extremely close to the 17th tees as is the 6th green to the 7th tees. Modern day golf design principals and health and safety parameters mean that it can be difficult to alter historical golf courses which are generally compromised for space and quite often see development being sited adjacent to golf boundaries. As members of the European Institute of Golf Course Architects, Pangaea follows, but is not tied to safety guidelines, but from experience and understanding of the game and design can provide professional opinion. Modern day equipment and balls allow the golfer to hit errant shots further, we can only mitigate as best possible to reduce impacts rather than nullify risk completely. Mitigation is key to reduce health and safety impacts i.e. having the right side of golf holes facing inward towards the course, away from the boundary, can be safer given that the majority of right-handed golfers errant shot is a slice. Implementing safer distances from the centreline of play to boundaries and providing space around golf features can be deemed safer. A splay line of 25 degrees can also be considered for shots in general. ...": 'Golf Course Redevelopment - Belleisle Park' (Pangea Golf Architecture, 2024) <https://www.golfsouthayrshire.com/media/2024/10/Belleisle-Public-Engagement-Booklet.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/JT4U-DDLP>. 

• Cart Path, placement, safety: 

> David B Hueber, 'Down the golf car path: Construction, placement of the mini-roads require careful planning' (1981) Spring The Florida Green 35-7 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/flgre/article/1981spr35.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/82JN-2NL2>. 

> George C Dye Sr, 'Rossmoor - Golf Cart Paths' (1972) Jan Golf Course Superintendents Association of Northern Carolina [Newsletter] 3 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/ttgnc/article/1972jan3.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5CGG-HPEE>. 

> Michael J Hurdzan, 'Golf cart paths can be accidents in waiting' (1997) 9(11) Golf Course News 31, 42-3 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/1997nov31b.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/D2GT-AWF5>.   

> Michael J Hurdzan, 'Planning for cart paths: Proceed with caution' (1984) 52(10) Golf Course Management 6-7, 10, 14, 16 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/1984oct6.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/T8PU-LLEA>. 

> See also, MSU Turfgrass: 'Fastlink of all records with topic (CARTS)' <https://tic.lib.msu.edu/tgif/flink/TOPIC2/CARTS>. 

• **** Jonathan Gaunt, 'Danger Ahead – Safety issues on UK golf courses' (EIGCA, 25 November 2015) <https://eigca.org/danger-ahead-safety-issues-on-uk-golf-courses/>, archived at <https://perma.cc/EF8Q-55ZF>: "In the UK, there are hundreds of 18-hole courses built on sites that are simply too small to accommodate them. Many of these courses are short by modern standards, at around 5,500 to 6,000 yards from the back tees, with narrow safety margins that would make an insurance consultant, or the health and safety officer from the local authority, cringe. Given recent (increasingly prevalent) claims for damages and compensation, this puts many UK clubs at great risk. If current “industry-accepted” safety margins were to be legally applied, most of these courses would cease to operate. Equally, if similar safety margins were to be applied to those courses which are also crossed by public footpaths, bridleways and roads, the same outcome would be the result. These safety margins range can from 60 to 80 metres and up to 100 metres, depending upon what the neighbouring land use is. The measurement is taken at right-angles from a fairway centre-line to the nearest boundary. 60 metres has been considered, for many years to be acceptable, however, in recent years, due to the technological advances made in equipment and balls, this has needed to be increased to 80 metres. In relation to railway lines and motorways the advisory distance increases to 100 metres. ... Neither the R&A or England Golf provide published advice (that can be used as precedent/reference in court) in relation to safety on golf courses. The European Institute of Golf Course Architects doesn’t publish guidelines or advice, either. However, Senior Members of the Institute will, generally, agree that a safety margin of 80 metres (from fairway centre-line to the nearest neighbouring boundary) is acceptable. This measurement, however, may be affected (i.e. it may need to be increased) by elevation (tee in relation to fairway), whether the hole is a par-3, par-4 or par-5; by alignment related to prevailing wind direction; by proximity to vegetation (forest/woodland) and water features; or by proximity to a motorway or railway line. We are cognisant of research done by The R&A, however, we cannot apply it in expert witness cases because it is not published for use by the general public. Also, the measures are just not relevant. This article was originally published in Golf Club Secretary, November 2015."

> See also, Jonathan Gaunt, 'Jonathan Gaunt, Senior Golf Course Architect writes about his old stomping ground ….' (Pitchcare, 1 February 2012) <https://www.pitchcare.com/blogs/news/jonathan-gaunt-senior-golf-course-architect-writes-about-his-old-stomping-ground?srsltid=AfmBOooEHMH_vKlvWq9pGQ3wIoJroyxjSupfH2I5dSb7AUyjnv-xqm-Q>, archived at <https://archive.is/eLEyp>. 

> 'Trending Topics with England Golf – Safeguarding & Legal Compliance' (Golf Club Talk UK, Audio File, December 2024) <https://www.golfclubtalk.uk/podcast/trending-topics-with-england-golf-safeguarding-legal-compliance/>. 

> Jonathan Gaunt, 'The Case for 9-Hole Golf Courses' (Golf Business News, 11 August 2018) <https://golfbusinessnews.com/news/opinion/the-case-for-9-hole-golf-courses/>, archived at <https://archive.md/6f7b8>; (EIGCA, 14 November 2013) <https://eigca.org/the-case-for-9-hole-golf/>, archived at <https://archive.md/t0STh>: "... What the industry needs is a revolution. This could be the start…..build fewer 18-hole courses and more 9-hole courses with state of the art practice facilities and full-length driving ranges. Make golf safer by eradicating narrow fairways, insufficient safety margins, crossing holes, parallel holes, etc. In the UK there are hundreds of 18-hole courses built on sites that are only 40 hectares (100 acres) or less, with poor quality practice facilities. Many of these courses are short by modern standards at say 5500 to 6500 yards from the back tees, with narrow or insubstantial safety margins that would make an insurance consultant or health and safety officer cringe. Given recent claims for damages and compensation this puts many UK clubs at great risk. In 2011, a claim was made by a golfer who lost an eye after he was hit by a wayward ball – he was blinded in one eye and now has a prosthetic eye. Mr Phee, who was walking between holes when he was hit by a shot struck by James Gordon from the 18th tee, sued both the player who struck the shot and the course owner of Niddry Castle Golf Club at Winchburgh, West Lothian. Damages were agreed at £397,000, and, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lord Brailsford said Mr Gordon, from Livingston, was 70% liable, while the club was 30% liable. Lord Brailsford said a golfer of Mr Gordon’s experience should have been aware of the risk his tee shot posed to Mr Phee, adding that Niddry Castle GC failed in its duty to provide proper safety signs. Lawyers acting for both Mr Gordon and the club had claimed “contributory negligence”, saying Mr Phee looked up on hearing a warning shout of “fore”. In effect, shouting fore is no longer a suitable defence. Putting up some safety signs, though, is not the answer to this – the answer is to increase safety margins on UK golf courses – both internal and external. Putting up fencing/netting is not a suitable solution either in many cases, because planning permission may not necessarily be granted for such a structure in the green belt. Tree plantations can help, but the trees have to grow to a substantial size/height to provide a suitable safety barrier that blocks shots hit to a height of 30 metres or higher. ...".

-> See also, Jon Allbut, 'Golfer loses an eye ... was this avoidable?' (2011) December Greenkeeper International 42 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2011dec42.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/2S87-FKJD>: "... If a risk assessment indicates significant risks to greenkeepers when they are working on the golf course it is very likely that golfers may also be at risk when they are in the same place. It seems very likely that had the golf club prepared a golf course risk assessment, and provided some guidance on safe routes and perhaps also a local rule for priority, it may have avoided the judgement of 30% negligence in this case. I find that golf clubs seem to be uncertain and confused about what they need to do and are unwilling to accept that sound judgement and good common sense by their professional team (the greenkeepers), and golfers, is often sufficient when preparing a risk assessment. There is also hesitation when it comes to deciding on what ‘reasonable actions’ are needed to eliminate, or reduce, the risks of injury. In my experience, if there is some doubt as to what actions are needed to reduce a risk, a period of monitoring of the work, or golf, or both, will soon provide the evidence needed. Monitoring is a valid process providing it is not open ended and the results are duly considered. However, it is also acceptable that monitoring can be extended for an additional period in order to gather additional data. There it seems likely that seasonal conditions on the ground are a factor then monitoring could be extended for several years, but there would need to be justification for this and it is not used as an excuse for not making a decision! Actions to reduce risk can be as basic as providing signs and/ or written guidance or local rules. However, it could be that there may need to be physical alterations to the golf course and these could range from subtle changes to the shape of a fairway, to moving greens and tees, re-grading steep slopes, moving trees or other costly actions. It is very important to remember that such actions must be proportionate to the degree of risk identified. In addition to the risks of civil actions being brought against the golf club there are also risks of criminal action in the form of enforcement notices, or prosecutions, being taken under health and safety legislation.".

-> John Allbut, 'Trials and Tribulations  of a Safety Advisor' (2009) September Greenkeeper International 62 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2009sep62.pdf>. 

> "... The developer's natural desire to squeeze in the maximum surface area of building land by increasing housing density, combined with technological advances in ball and club design rendering previous safety margins all but useless, has led to legal battles, physical injury, broken windows, angry neighbours and unhappy golfers. Safety is the single most important factor when considering the interplay between golf courses and the built environment. There are no 'rules' for safety, no safety legislation specifically for golf course real estate, only conventions and recommendations. Each case is unique and should be judged on its merits but if the master plan layout results in accidents something is wrong. The developer's instinct to maximise building area is usually in conflict with the golf course architect's desire to ensure safety by creating the widest possible 'cordon sanitaire' between the sensitive playing areas and the buildings. Unsightly and often ineffective safety nets are not a desired option despite their increased use on many sites. It is usually the sign of a failed design if safety netting becomes necessary in order to protect housing. ...": Jeremy Pern, 'Golf Courses and the Built Environment' (2005-06) European Institute of Golf Course Architects Yearbook 43, 45 <https://www.jeremypern.com/sites/default/files/publications/file/2005-06_built_environment_eigca_copy.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/B86H-Y6D4>. 

> "... Golf courses come in many shapes and sizes and each one is unique. Their singularity depends largely on the landscape in which they are situated. Every golf course has an identical function and is composed of a number of individual parts whose slight but infinite variations of form through design or serendipity give each course its golfing character. There are many different types of golf facilities. These include driving ranges, golf course academies, short courses, nine hole courses, executive courses. However, the standard golf course model and general reference used here is an eighteen-hole course, including a practice area, a driving range and putting green. All golf facilities include some or all of the component parts found on the standard golf course. In order to create a standard model golf course including infrastructure, with adequate safety margins within the course and around the boundaries, a minimum of 50 ha used to be required. However with the advent of fitter players, technical improvements to clubs and balls, maintenance procedures that are often geared at making balls travel further and a more litigious public the minimum area required for an 18 hole standard golf course has increased. The average area of land used by recent 18 hole golf course developments is more than 75 ha. ... ": Jeremy Pern, 'Design a Golf Facility' (2010) 16(4) SpazioSport 22, 24 <https://www.jeremypern.com/sites/default/files/publications/file/2010_spazio_see_pg_2241.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/W99C-SCVF>. 

> "... Mr Stutt, who founded the European Institute of Golf Architects (EIGCA), said: "The difficult balance of acceptable safety margins between golf holes and housing or roads is studied at great length by all students of the EIGCA as part of their several years' training and, as far as I can see, no suitably qualified person has looked at the layout. ...": Chris Fay, 'Architect’s horror at golf course proposals' (The Northern Echo, 12 February 2008) <https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/2036598.architects-horror-golf-course-proposals/>, archived at <https://archive.md/T1Teq>. 

> "... Peter Nordwall, President of the Federation of Scandinavian Golf Architects, said that he had no doubt modern golf equipment enables golfers to hit the ball further and further. As a result older courses have become more unsafe and obsolete, while new courses need more acreage to allow for longer holes and increased safety margins. ...": 'The World Forum Conference ‘‘Golf Course Architecture for the 21st Century ~ Challenges and Opportunities”' (EIGCA, 11 May 2010) <https://eigca.org/the-world-forum-conference-golf-course-architecture-for-the-21st-century-challenges-and-opportunities/>, archived at <https://archive.md/wFcuz>. 

> "... The Old Course at St Andrews sits on 90 acres of land.  In the 1970s it was common to build a 6,800 yard course that would require 130 acres.  Today's golf course regularly break the 200-acre mark.  Some of this is attributed to safety and the distances the ball travels even when miss hit. Some is due the spread out nature of courses through communities where no corridor is shared with another. While teaching Golf Course Architecture at The University of Georgia, I had the students take a short quiz on the first day. One of the questions on this quiz was what is a Links course?  More than once these future land planners described a links course as one that looked like links of sausage, connected only by a narrow path. The inefficiency of land use in this arrangement is attributable to upwards of a 15% increase in the land required....": 'Width for the sake of Width' (Miller Golf Design, June 2015) <https://www.millergolfdesign.com/notes>, archived at <https://archive.is/L0oAC>. 

> " ... British architect Adrian Stiff says: “Some courses need 15 per cent taking off the ball, others probably none,” suggesting that clubs could choose the ball that best suits their layout. Of course, a rollback across the whole game would mean taking some distance off amateurs too. “But golf is too difficult already!” you cry. Does a reduced flight ball really make the game harder? Shorter hitters might be more inclined to start using the correct tee for their game, and those of us who can’t hit it straight would get in less trouble and lose fewer balls. Courses would become safer too. “As architects, we have battled to get more land for golf courses as the further the ball goes, the further it can go off line,” says Ramsey. “So it has caused the footprint to expand not just for distance but horizontally for safety from homes, roads and other golfers. The old model in the 1970s was 150 acres for a golf course. Now it is closer to 250 acres.” A reduced flight ball doesn’t mean we lose the joy of long hitting. Because ‘long’ is a relative term. A 280 or 300 yard drive would be a joy to behold, in the same way as a 350-yard drive is now – because it would still be vastly further than most of us can hit it. Ramsey says: “No other sport allows a player to hit, throw or kick a ball as far as golf does, so long hitters or big bombers will still be big bombers at the local course or on tour. “However, as an architect my interest is in the game itself and how it’s played. Bomb-and-gouge or grip-it and-rip-it are not great strategic design principles. Requiring golfers to think and strategise how they play a golf course in a risk-reward setting is a much more enjoyable experience.” Sustainability, safety, strategy – all great reasons for a big rollback, and for it to apply across the entire game. But instead, after years of research, it’s looking like being a measly 15 yards, and only for a couple of pro events. I sincerely hope that this was thought as a first step towards truly meaningful distance reductions. But given the reaction and influence of the manufacturers and pros, it seems more likely that by the start of 2026, when the proposed rule would be implemented, it’ll be scrapped altogether.": Toby Ingleton, 'Is that all?' (2023) 72 Golf Course Architect 52, 53 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue72/53/>. 

> "... water can be an effective safety buffer for housing developments, ... whenever integrating golf and residential it is essential that all the safety setbacks are adhered to and wherever possible increased ... ": Adam Lawrence, 'Home is where the golf is' (2020) 62 Golf Course Architecture 46, 47, 55 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue62/46/>. 

> ".. Altaona could be a real model for new and future residential development. We have planned a golf community with safety corridors of 110 to 120 metres between the course and the properties. ...": Marco Martin, 'Bringing the public closer' (2020) 61 Golf Course Architecture 52, 53 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue61/52/>. 

> "... 1. Safety - It doesn't matter how great your practice area is if someone working on using their wedge's bounce gets beaned by an errant shot.. Ample space should be provided to allow a margin of error for less-than perfect shots from less-than perfect golfers. ...": Thad Layton, The art of practice' (2019) 57 Golf Course Architecture 46, 46-7 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue57/46/>. See also, Thad Layton, 'Eight tips for good short game area design' (Golf Course Architecture, 23 July 2019) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/eight-tips-for-good-short-game-area-design>, archived at <https://archive.md/Uttn5>. 

> "... “One aspect I should like to comment upon is the tree planting that has taken place in recent years. I am sure that it is recognised that the use of trees is an important factor in golf course planning. Trees generally are used as safety buffers, background making and filling in blank spaces and serve, of course, as wind breaks. The fact they are beautifying is secondary and an added bonus. If trees intrude upon the actual playing area for no purpose other than beautification, their advantage is misplaced and consequently lost.": Mike Clayton, 'Tree-free golf' (Golf Course Architecture, 8 July 2020) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/tree-free-golf>, archived at <https://archive.md/afSl7>. 

• Challenges faced by architects around routings, layouts and safety: Sean Dudley, 'DeVries and Pont to host UK golf course architecture seminar this June' (Golf Course Architecture, 25 April 2016) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/devries-and-pont-to-host-uk-golf-course-architecture-seminar-this-june>, archived at <https://archive.is/C7T75>. 

• James D'Arcy, 'Grange Golf Club: A new angle for safety' (Golf Course Architecture, 13 September 2017) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/grange-golf-club-a-new-angle-for-safety>, archived at <https://archive.md/1rBVu>. 

• Renovations - Role of Golf Course Architect - Safety: "... Improving safety cannot be ignored. As part of any renovation exercise, an audit of the holes needs to be undertaken and revisions made, should risks not be acceptably manageable. Then, once the overall design has been considered, with its safety, the components of the course need to be assessed. With greens, the focus should lie in their sizing, depth, width, shape, contour; their ability to gather or shed the shot and number of pin positions; their construction profile and drainage performance; the quality of the sward and the grass type; the adequacy of entry and exit from the green and the quality of the feature surrounds. There is no less to consider with tees – size; tolerance to wear; shape and location in relation to the improvement of strategy; the profile of the tee’s construction and its drainage and rootzone status. One must establish whether the bunkering is consistent in size, shape and style. Additionally, and most important – is it appropriate? Are bunkers located in the right place to define the hole, to guide the shot?": AML, 'The value of the golf architect' (Golf Course Architecture, 23 February 2011) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/the-value-of-the-golf-architect>, archived at <https://archive.md/gblSP>. 

• Fencing and Netting:

> Bill Lawlor, 'Fencing and Netting - Health and Safety' (2007) September Greenkeeper International 19 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2007sep19.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/PZZ6-8AHH>. 

> 'The Rise of High Safety Screens' (Country Club International, Webpage) <https://www.countryclub.com.au/blog/the-rise-of-high-safety-screens/?srsltid=AfmBOorbOabm7CwgLvgXiUAzto9LT6bmb_7rFqPwcRNVXG0R2keu8kON>, archived at <https://perma.cc/99MM-7F6R>. 

• ** Blind par-three courses: "... Why have so few blind par threes been built on major golf courses in the last 100 years? Some would say the answer is easy – they are poor golf holes. In the annals of golfing and golf course architecture history, there is much evidence of this opinion. My personal favourite is from Tom Simpson in Golf Architecture: “Holes of this character (heroic holes) may be in a sense attractive, but many of them, such as the Himalayas at Prestwick, are too adventurous and resemble too closely ‘dips out of the lucky bag’ to justify their presence on our classic courses.” You can hang your hat on any number of reasons – unfair, unpopular, lacking in drama, lacking in shot value. You can also choose to characterise blind par threes as unsafe. Nowadays, the devil’s advocate is safety and liability. If you are sceptical to begin with, the litigious nature of our society is the final nail in the coffin. ... Under certain circumstances, golfers are said to have assumed the risk of the natural incidents of the game. As far back as 1905, this concept has been recognised by Scottish courts as it applies to golf. In the case of Andrew v Stevenson, the court stated: “The risks of accident in golf are such, whether from those playing behind, or from those meeting the player or crossing his line of play, that, in my opinion, no one is entitled to take part in the game without paying attention to what is going on around and near him, and that on who receives injury, which by a little care and observation on his part might have been escaped, should not be entitled to claim damages for that injury.” Assumption of risk can be a defense to a negligence action. In some countries, the concept is referred to as ‘volenti non fit injuria’ – to a willing person, no injury is done. Under the law of negligence, a golf course has a general duty of care to protect golfers from danger. The exact boundaries of this legal requirement vary, but a golf course should be prepared to show evidence of their safety related precautions. For a blind short hole, a golf club should have documentation of the design and operational features mentioned earlier – visibility of walk-offs, a liberal safety buffer, a bell or lighting system, signage, and scorecard language. A golf club may be under a formal requirement to conduct a risk assessment. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act in the UK applies to golf courses and requires a risk assessment and plan to minimise risk. According to Michael Shaw, chief executive of the UK’s National Golf Clubs’ Advisory Association, blind shot risks would be subject to this requirement. Although conducting an audit of risks may feel like a burden, it is further evidence that a course is serious about safety and fulfilling its duty of care. Many golf courses in the US require golfers to sign a legal waiver or release of claims before teeing off or driving a golf cart. Private clubs can also seek to limit liability in their bylaws. The Court of Appeals of Massachusetts enforced an indemnity provision in a golf club’s member handbook in a wrongful death action ultimately saving the club (or its insurance company) US$4.5 million (see Post v Belmont Country Club). While the language of a limitation of liability is key, and implementation of a release can be met with resistance from pro shop personnel, these are hurdles that can be overcome. As Prestwick, Lahinch, Cruden Bay and others have proven, it is possible safely to operate a blind par three for many years without incident. But to build a safe blind par three in today’s litigious age, it takes a combined effort from architect, management team, and perhaps a lawyer to avoid potential liability. And just to be safe, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to throw in a little luck as well!": DS, 'Throwing caution to the wind' (Golf Course Architecture, 1 January 2009) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/throwing-caution-to-the-wind>, archived at <https://archive.md/ErwJ2>. 

• *** Mark Reason, 'The Open 2010: the problems of excessive ball distance: Open Letter to the Telegraph Sport from a body of concerned golf course architects: The problems of excessive ball distance' (The Telegraph, 10 July 2010) <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/theopen/7883393/The-Open-2010-the-problems-of-excessive-ball-distance..html>, archived at <https://archive.md/Ou6xf>. 

> see also, 'Excessive golf ball distance has also had significant adverse affects as regards golf’s architectural and cultural heritage' (Geoff Shackleford, 11 July 2010) <https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/7/11/excessive-golf-ball-distance-has-also-had-significant-advers.html>, archived at <https://archive.md/HL970>: "... * Increased golf ball distance has increased the danger golfers, greenkeepers and the public face. On the same angles of dispersion, golf balls travel a greater distance, creating safety problems on and around old golf courses and the need for greater safety margins on new golf courses. * Land is one of the most important factors for the creation of new golf courses. As the next wave of golf course construction will be in the developing and highly populated world, excessive golf ball distance is a barrier to actual and responsible golf course development. The extra need for environmentally sensitive materials along with greater quantities of capital and labour for golf course development and maintenance greatly increases the cost of golf."

• ** Reproduction of parts of and interpretation of the EIGCA and PGA guidelines - "illustrative safety margins" - dispersion: 'Grims Dyke Golf Club - Redesign of Holes 14 and 15 - Planning Statement' (Planning UK, 2021) <https://docs.planning.org.uk/20210827/155/QXMLC5QF0DC00/8wj6y89dc13awl0p.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/YL94-BLB6>.  -- references to Appendices with copies of the Guidelines (not within). 

• ** ?EIGCA - Safety margins: "... This letter outlines how the proposed land use changes at Brunello could be accommodated with some specific changes to the golf course. As I understand from our discussion and the maps provided, you are looking to rezone some land from golf to housing along some of the road frontages. In particular, holes 2, 9 and 16 will add some new housing near the green sites which could pose some safety issues if not addressed through course design changes. Golf safety assessments is an inexact science and safety can be influenced by wind, temperature, topography, vegetation, out of bounds, and turf conditions. Statistics can help narrow down the safety margins for average golfers and both the American and European Institute of Golf Course Architects have some rules of thumb and guidelines which are useful to follow when doing safety audits. Some of the considerations include: 1. Since most golfers are right handed (90-93% in Canada) and most tend to slice (right-sided shot for a right handed golfer and left-sided shot for a left handed golfer), architects must provide a greater safety margin on the right side of a golf hole than the left side. 2. The longer the distance a ball is struck, the greater the chance for a mis-shot misaligned from the centre of the fairway or green. 3. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that “15 degrees on either side of the apparent line of play will account for 92% of golf shots” (M. Hurdzan, 2006. “Golf Course Architecture”). ...": 'Brunello Golf Safety Assessment' (Fathom Studios, 19 January 2021) <https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/business/planning-development/applications/23016%20-%20Brunello%20Golf%20Safety%20Assessment_Redacted.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/C96G-8327>; also accessible at <https://cdn.halifax.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-hall/community-councils/220719hwcc1011.pdf>. 

• " ... It seems to me that to roll the ball back will be a logistical nightmare. But let’s just say it’s possible. I think there’s an argument that the whole game could benefit from a ball that didn’t go quite so far. If golfers hit the ball a little less off line with their driver, could more courses on small parcels of land keep their historic layouts? I worry that many inner-city courses, for example, are in danger of closing, being shortened or having their boundaries covered in nets. The safety margins in modern golf are much larger than eras gone by and, coupled with many tournament venues needing to be over 7,000 yards, the footprint is huge. I don’t see these guidelines changing, but a rollback would ensure that we don’t go bigger. If the ball does roll back, I don’t think it will be enough to change our role as designers too dramatically. Topography often dictates where a hazard is placed specifically within the zone we look to work in. The reduction in length is not big enough that those zones change.": Alex Hay, 'Dear Editor' (2023) 72 Golf Course Architecture 11 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue72/10/>.

• " ... As any golf course architect that has had to explain proposed improvements to members will know, golf does not like change. With balls going further and further, we have had to publish safety guidelines for the design of holes, but the truth is many new and old courses do not meet these guidelines. Reducing the flight of the ball seems like the obvious innovation. Separating professional and amateur equipment might sound odd but it happens in other sports. Golfers will not want this change, and we already know tour pros do not want it. This is an improvement to the game, but the people who play the game do not want it. My guess is there is not a compelling case to rollback just for touring professional.": Andrew Craven, 'Dear Editor' (2023) 72 Golf Course Architecture 11 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue72/10/>. 

> apparently, safety guidelines published by International Design Group Ltd. To enquire about those safety guidelines referred to. <https://uk.linkedin.com/company/idgdotco?trk=public_profile_topcard-current-company>; <https://idg.co/>, archived at <https://archive.md/Sh77S>. 

• "... Thousands of municipal and greenbelt courses are ill-equipped to host modern golf. In an urban setting chasing distance and squeezing safety margins is doomed to failure. A talented golf course architect can pick off the coolest features from a tired eighteen-holer to create nine great holes that are engaging for beginners and experts. Adding a putting course, a five acre short course and beautiful walking trails is straightforward. ...": Benjamin Warren, 'What the future holds for golf in urban areas' (Golf Course Architecture, 21 December 2015) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/what-the-future-holds-for-golf-in-urban-areas>, archived at <https://archive.is/yDsDz>. 

• ** 'General Safety Envelope Design Parameters for the Practice Range' in Golf Hole Safety Envelopes (Arthur Schaupter Golf Course Architects. 21 June 2024) <https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/johnstowco-meet-a99e31c6d80b45b09a4c14430ed3e2da/ITEM-Attachment-001-ee5bebfaf1e2458388a7d8c9c035d9ed.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9ZDK-PBJZ>: "... Two books published by practicing golf course architects have been used as reference to provide guidance on what dimensioning to use in establishing the safety envelope around the practice range: • 92% of all golf shots will fall within a 15 degree angle from the intended line of play. This standard has been expanded to account for longer golf shots, newer golf balls, better equipment, etc. • The standard used for Bella Ridge has been expanded. It is a 17-degree angle to the left or hook side for right-handed golfers, which comprises the vast majority of golfers. On the right/slice side for right-handed golfers, 23-degrees is being used as the envelope within which almost all golf balls will fall. • Additionally, this safety envelope is established from the very extreme end and back of the tee, encompassing all other tee locations and creating a much wider margin for the vast majority of tee locations. From “Golf Course Architecture, Design, Construction & Restoration” by Dr. Michael Hurdzan (Blue lines): From “Routing the Golf Course, The Art & Science That Forms The Golf Journey”, by Forrest Richardson (Red lines): • The landing area of the range should be 30% wider than the teeing area with additional safety margins established outside of the tee width. The 200’ wide tees have an additional 50’ of safety margin added on either side of the tee in order to establish the width of the landing area. This means the tee width is now 200’ + 50’ + 50’ = 300’ wide. 300’ x 130% = 390’ of width needed on the range. • I’ve set the end point for this safety envelope at 300 yards from the front edge of the tee areas, which means that the length to the end of the safety envelope shown from the back of the tees is about 345-350 yards. The end of the property to the west is another 70-80 yards away, well beyond the reach of just about all golfers. Additionally, the design of the practice range has been uniquely set-up with two separate teeing areas specifically so that the players can be directed and focused into the middle of the range. The road on the south and the Hillsborough Ditch on the north have been considered and the tees oriented to keep players hitting away from both. • The target greens and more importantly the target fairways also help to direct the players focus to the middle of the range."

• * 'Gulf Harbour Non-Regulatory Design Guidelines for Golf Residential Developments Including Integreated Residential Developments' (Rodney District Council, NZ, 30 September 2004) <https://www.kwgnz.org/uploads/1/4/6/6/146618163/gulfharbour_non-reg_design_guidelines__1_.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/XX9T-M5TJ> -- more of a planning guideline than is a safety guideline. 

• Bunker sand specification for Australian golf courses : summary of key results (Australian Golf Union and the Australian Turfgrass Research Institute Ltd, 1995) <https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2156043>. 

• Golf / Landscape Architects' DOC: See eg, part 4, Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW). 

• 'Comments for Planning Application DM/1032/20/FUL' (NELINCS, UK, 2021) <https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/assets/uploads/2021/05/3.1-Deposited-Plans-And-Applications-Comments-2.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/FG87-7PCK>. 

• 'Planning Advice Note - PAN 43: Golf Courses and Associated Developments' (The Scottish Office, Environment Department, April 1994) <https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2008/04/planning-advice-note-pan-43-golf-courses-associated-developments/documents/0059474-pdf/0059474-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0059474.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/XTN7-NTZT>.

• 'McLeod Golf Course: Quality Standards and Improvement Plan' (McLeod Country Golf Club, 2017) <https://www.mcleodgolf.com.au/documents/McLeodGolfCourseQualityPlansV6.0.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/398N-SFB3>. 

• 'Gidman elected as new EIGCA President', Greenkeeper International June 2001 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2001jun4b.pdf>: "He first entered golf course architecture with Hawtree in 1983 after studying Landscape Architecture at Leeds Polytechnic between 1979 and 1982 and prior to that having worked as a professional golfer for six years. In 1991 Simon set up his own golf course architecture company and has now designed more than 35 golf courses throughout Europe. He has served on the Committee of the EIGCA and before that the BIGCA for many years and has chaired the Institute's sub-committee investigating safety margins on golf courses."

> See also, 'New President for EIGCA' (Golf Business News, 30 April 2001) <https://golfbusinessnews.com/news/people/new-president-for-eigca/>, archived at <https://archive.is/tSo5E>. 

> See also, 'Renovating & Remodelling Existing Courses' (Simon Gidman, Webpage) <https://www.gidmangolf.co.uk/philosophy/renovating-remodelling-existing-courses/>, archived at <https://archive.md/6XgLD>: "... Safety issues relating to sensitive boundaries ...".

> 'Evaluation and Planning' (Simon Gidman, Webpage) <https://www.gidmangolf.co.uk/services/evaluation-and-planning/>, archived at <https://archive.md/0N010>: "Expert witness – Simon Gidman has acted as an expert witness on a variety of golf     related subjects from safety issues on golf courses to analysis of specification and other planning related issues."

• Short game practice area - dual use - safety issues: "... As David, Past President of the European Institute of Golf Course Architects explains ..”The 36 hole venue was originally designed by American architect Robert Von Hagge in the late 1990s. Although there were two large practice putting greens, close to the 1st tee of each course, the venue however only had one short game practice green, shared between chipping and bunker practice, although well situated on sloping ground between the two courses and directly in front of the impressive clubhouse. However, it became apparent that this was not large enough for both uses for both courses, and not only became overcrowded at busy times but also created safety issues with the dual use”.": 'Construction Work Completed on David Williams Designed New Short Game Practice Area for RSHECC in Madrid' (David Williams Golf Design, 13 November 2018) <https://www.williamsgolf.co.uk/2018/11/construction-work-completed-david-williams-designed-new-short-game-practice-area-rshecc-madrid/#more-412>, archived at <https://archive.md/S2pB4>. 

• 'Summary of historic eras of golf course design and development' in GOLF COURSES AS DESIGNED LANDSCAPES OF HISTORIC INTEREST (EIGCA, 2020) 19-20 - p 232-3 (pdf numbering) <https://www.oakville.ca/getmedia/b2b18f6c-8424-4a6f-a5e5-92e62abb0915/planning-chl-phase-2-glen-abbey.pdf>.

• '6 Golf Course Architect Design Considerations' (Booth Golf & Leisure, 28 March 2022) <https://boothgolfandleisure.co.uk/about-us/news/six-golf-course-architect-design-considerations/>, archived at <https://archive.is/ZEJh6>. -- J Gaunt.

• ** Liability and design issues - generally: Richard M Phelps, 'Golf Courses and Liability' (1997) A Patch of Green 8-9 <https://listings.lib.msu.edu/patch/1997spr.pdf#page=8>, archived at <https://perma.cc/UM6Z-3ZVH>: "... In the past, if you were hit by a golf ball while playing golf, you accepted it as part of the risk of being on the golf course where high speed projectiles are flying. Today, we must be aware of the potential for a golfer’s ball hitting another golfer. Ample opportunities for errant shots include tee areas that are too close to an adjacent green. Another situation may be an approach shot that wanders to the side of the intended green or the tee shot that is "toed, "heeled," or "shanked". Usually, there isn’t enough time to yell "fore". A golf course should identify these potential hazards and provide berms, trees, and screens to stop balls. A more substantial change might be to move tees or greens farther away from the congested area. Access to the tee also has been a problem. If you encourage access to the tee by stairs, ramps, between ropes, etc., make certain the accessing golfer is safe while someone is teeing off. Additionally, those stairs, ramps, or slopes might result in a slip, with the result being broken bones. Steps seem to be disasters waiting to happen. A cleat can easily catch on a worn step or the edge of a step. Carpeting is often worn and loose. Steep, smooth, hard surfaces are something to avoid or replace. Ricochets off ball washers, signs, rocks, walls, etc. can result in eye injuries as well as all kinds of bodily bruises and cuts. Sunken trenches over irrigation lines, irrigation heads, animal burrows, and other imperfections on the course are lurking and should be repaired to avoid sprains and broken bones. Low branches from trees should be pruned. Remove broken limbs that could fall on someone. Golf carts are necessary and welcome revenue generators, but they do create additional dangers. Many golf course architects will not design cart paths due to the injuries that can occur with irresponsible golfers. Make certain that approaches to bridges do not allow a cart to miss and tumble into a creek, lake, or ravine. Watch for curves that are too sharp or that are banked the wrong way. The driver may know where he is going, but the passenger usually does not. Curbs can help control play and cart circulation, but they can also create tipping problems. Carts should be prohibited from dangerous slopes or areas of the course where they could hydroplane on early morning dew or after a rain. ... Properly placed trees, shrubs, mounds, or temporary screens might well resolve the situation if it is rectified before it reaches the courts. Most problems become serious then communication between the parties ceases or if the golf course is not willing to mend the situation. Not only should we be concerned about property damage to adjacent areas of courses, we also must be concerned about personal injuries that could occur. We have been made aware of many cases where people are afraid to use their decks, patios, backyards, etc., due to the number of golf balls entering their property. Unfortunately, while it is not possible to prevent every golf ball from leaving the course, efforts should be made to reduce the likelihood. Some shots in the direction of housing may be inevitable; others may not originate from a tee, but may be coming in on second or third shots. Ultimately, the golfer is responsible for his actions and must be made aware of such through signage on the course."

• Ryan Van Der Veen, 'Hilltop Course Design Review & Assessment Report - Mollymook Golf Club' (RVC, 2013) <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6005047c47a6a51d6368fb4c/t/6493c2ae7f616672da6e60e2/1687405243164/Hilltop+Review+RYAN+VAN+DER+VEEN+9th+May+2013.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/WVT2-7W49>. 

> * See also, Re-routing, reconstruction: "... At the Hilltop course there are several issues of concern regarding safety, aesthetics and maintenance and the general thought process is to ‘modernise’ the course by addressing shade problems, bunker consistency, and tee design. The Beachside course possesses dire safety problems with the routing of the layout requiring attention. The layout of holes presents numerous safety problems both internally to golfers and externally to adjacent public roadways. To solve these safety issues, the entire site needs to be revamped. RW Golf Course Architecture, MGC Concept Control Plan Design Report, Dec 2006.  ... KEY ISSUES Safety In recent years, the number of incidents involving golf ball strikes to persons on neighbouring properties has increased, particularly along Golf Avenue. In addition, damage to houses, vehicles and other property has increased. It is important to note there are also safety concerns for players and employees on the course. The course is ‘tight’ and several locations are over exposed to the flight path of wayward golf balls. Upon seeking legal opinion in 2019, Tony Johnston (Eastern Commercial Lawyers) advised the Club has a duty of care to minimise the risk of harm to the public due to errant golf balls entering neighbouring property. As result of this advice, the 1st and 9th tees were relocated to prevent golf balls travelling into and across Riversdale Drive (public road).  The image below identifies the primary danger zones of the current course layout. Of key significance are the areas to the right of the 3rd and the 8th fairways where wayward golf balls travel onto public roads and private residences. Note also the housing adjoining the 6th fairway. COURSE DESIGN The Beachside Course Upgrade project is underpinned by the Clubs obligation to reduce risk to the public, club patrons and employees as highlighted in the findings of the 2006 Ross Watson Design Report and 2019 legal opinion provided by Eastern Commercial Lawyers.  The 2006 Ross Watson Control Plan recommended: The distance of the course be shortened to reduce the length of ball flight, Realign fairways towards the centre of the course (inwards) to minimise the risk of ‘sliced’ golf balls entering neighbouring properties. As such the key element of the design is a course layout providing the safest option possible in the space available. ...": 'Beachside Gof Course Upgrade' (Mollymook Golf Club, Webpage) <https://www.mollymookgolf.com.au/beachside-course-update>, archived at <https://archive.is/vGJtP>. 

• 'Statement of Evidence of T Cushnahan' (NZ) <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/550b5664e4b0d8b0f4b941db/t/5a24769ac830253042aea064/1512339105545/Statement+of+T+Cushnahan+10.11.17+%28TCUSHNAHAN+EDIT2%292003.pdf>. 

• Use of OB 'Out-of-Bounds' in Course Design/Management: Adam Lawrence, 'Out of bounds: the worst thing in golf?' (Golf Course Architecture, 18 November 2022) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/out-of-bounds-the-worst-thing-in-golf>, archived at <https://archive.is/8u2Sb>. 

• Dog-legged hole - periscope: 'Periscope for Golf Course' (1965) 246 September The British Golf Greenkeeper 12 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/bggk/article/1965sep12.pdf>. 

• Sustainable Golf Renovations Guidelines (GEO Foundation for Sustainable Golf, 2023) <https://sustainable.golf/assets/media/files/Developments/Construction%20Support/GEO%20Renovations%20Guide_FINAL%20WEB.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9H8W-KZ8P>. 

> See also, Sam Thomas, 'Sustainable Golf Renovations - Guidelines' (LinkedIn, 19 October 2023) <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sustainable-golf-renovations-guidelines-sam-thomas>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250101114227/https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sustainable-golf-renovations-guidelines-sam-thomas>. 

> 'Renovations' (SustainableGolf, Webpage) <https://sustainable.golf/developments/renovations>. 

• Planning - conversion of par 4 to par 3 - shortening of hole - errant golf balls from fairway hit footballers on adjacent field - tee off across road unsafe - competing course design experts - Sea View Golf Club, Cottesloe:

> Bret Christian, 'Golf Rancour Par for the Course' (The Post Newspaper) <https://www.gbwgc.org.au/Pdfs/Seaview%20Furore.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/M9X4-KLU5>; also archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250101105459/https://www.gbwgc.org.au/Pdfs/Seaview%20Furore.pdf>: "Sea View Golf Club is heading for a clash with the local council over golf-ball danger from a fairway that runs close to the local rugby and football grounds. The club is considering appealing to a higher authority after the council voted two weeks ago to pressure it to change the layout of the eastern edge of the golf course, to make it safe for non-golfers. Errant golf balls from the fairway have hit footballers and dog walkers on Harvey Field and Cottesloe Oval in Broome Street, with the second fairway of Sea View Golf Club running alongside. Cottesloe council voted to over-ride a golf club expert's plan to make tee-shots at the dual 2/11 fairway angle away from the sports ground, then back again. The council imported its own golf course designer, Richard Chamberlain, to come up with a design it says is much safer and eliminates the need to put a high, unsightly fence between the sports field and the fairway. Golf club officials are angry that the council has adopted the Chamberlain design, because it reduces the hole from a par 4 to a par 3, shrinking the status of the course to host competitions. Club president David Rogers calls this "putt-putt golf", reducing Sea View to a par 69 course, when it needed to be par 70 or 71. Modifying another hole to increase the overall par figure was a big and expensive job, he said. The council also opposes the placement of the tee-box for the next hole, identified by Mr Chamberlain as "a very awkward situation". Male golfers tee off across Jarrad Street, the entry road to the golf club. "It looked very unsafe," said Mr Chamberlain who photo- graphed a car parked in the firing line. The council vote is for that tee-box to be closed and for all players to tee off in what is now the women's tee on the north side of Jarrad Street. The council sees the present set-up as safety and insurance problems. But the club believes its own plan is safe and the council's change would additionally degrade the competitiveness of the golf course. The plan accepted by the council would shorten the 2/11 fairway and build a new putting green alongside a stand of trees to the southwest of the present green, requiring golfers to tee off in a direction away from the sports ground. The council also wants a 5mhigh, 30m-long fence between the tee-box and the sports field, directly to the east of a single tee-box in the corner of the fairway. The council rejected the club's plan to keep the fairway as a par 4 by making it a dog-leg hole, helping to keep balls away from the sports field. This would entail removing up to 100 old trees on the golf course, councillor Chilla Bulbeck told a previous council meeting when convincing councillors to reject the golf club's design. Mr Chamberlain said the club's design would be less safe, and might require a high fence between the fairway the sports fields. The Sea View land is an A-class reserve vested in the council, which leases it to the golf club. The council and golf club are negotiating another 10-year lease, with the council wanting to resolve the safety issues before the current lease expires in July 2026. It has asked its CEO to liaise with the club and report back by April next year."

> Jessica Evensen, 'Cottesloe council to vote on realignment of Sea View Golf Course in 2024' (PerthNow, 30 November 2023) <https://www.perthnow.com.au/local-news/perthnow-western-suburbs/cottesloe-council-to-vote-on-realignment-of-sea-view-golf-course-in-2024-c-12695377>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20240229154741/https://www.perthnow.com.au/local-news/perthnow-western-suburbs/cottesloe-council-to-vote-on-realignment-of-sea-view-golf-course-in-2024-c-12695377>: "Converting two holes to par 3s at Sea View Golf Course remains an option to stop errant tee shots from landing on Harvey Field and Cottesloe Oval, but any changes to the course layout will not be made until at least next year. Town of Cottesloe staff will meet Sea View representatives to discuss the option — which would affect the par 4 second and 11th holes — of a refreshed alignment directing shots “completely away” from neighbouring playing fields. But that proposal would cut par on the 18-hole course from 71 to 69, a move club president David Rogers says will “significantly impact” the club’s business reputation and “standing in the golf community”. ... Reducing par to 69 would also mean Sea View no longer being considered a championship course, which Mr Rogers feared could drive members away from the club.". -- Michael Coates and Richard Chamberlain competing designs, see technical drawings within. 

> See also, 'Consultation now open for the Harvey Field Recreation Precinct (Closed)' (Town of Cottesloe, 2022) <https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/consultations/past/consultation-now-open-for-the-harvey-field-recreation-precinct>, archived at <https://archive.is/HRo9n> -- proposed fencing and tee-box alterations. 

> See also, Harvey Field Consultation FAQ: <https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/Profiles/cottesloe/assets/moduledata/consultations/4a30962f-d9d3-491d-84e1-5a92e3de629d/2.2/Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/B96D-2JG8>: "... 8. Will there be a golf ball protection fence between Seaview golf course and Harvey Field? Modifications to the golf course would be the preferred option with the fence being the last resort after all other engineering solutions have been exhausted. Surrounding residents will be consulted before this occurs."

• Ross Perrett, 'Designing to a Brief' (2010) Feb Inside Golf 52 <http://tpgolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Designing_to_a_brief_Feb2010.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/M9UV-EMKN>, also archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20210416055301/http://tpgolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Designing_to_a_brief_Feb2010.pdf>. 

• Golf course design planning process: Ross Perrett, 'Plan for the Future' (2011) 66 Jan Inside Golf 55 <http://tpgolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Architecture_Jan_InsideGolf.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/E6Y2-9N3X>, also archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20200317164917/http://tpgolf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Architecture_Jan_InsideGolf.pdf>: "... Understanding your course is a fundamental starting point as with any health check. The Audit of existing conditions covers a broad range of topics including the site conditions, course history and heritage, financial resources and staff levels, membership/user profile, course layout, length, bunkering and strategy, external and internal safety, the Clubhouse, car parking and practice facilities, turf and maintenance, irrigation and water management, landscape character and sustainability and miscellaneous topics specific to the facility. Following a careful analysis of the course audit a series ofrecommendations are discussed with key stakeholders of the club management. This interactive process establishes a clear set of objectives and priorities. A GolfCourse Masterplan isthen developed by the Golf CourseArchitectwhich formalizes an agreed scope of work and direction for the club. The Masterplan must be ‘sold’ to the broader golf club in order for it to be adopted as a shared vision and way forward. ... "; See also, <https://issuu.com/insidegolf/docs/ig66_jan11_complete_final>. 

• Andrew Forsyth, 'Risk assessments can prevent huge payouts for golf injuries' (Golf Club Management, 15 January 2012) <https://web.archive.org/web/20150311105604/https://golfclubmanagement.net/2012/01/risk-assessments-can-prevent-huge-payouts-for-golf-injuries/>. 

• Oxley Nets Pty Ltd: <https://oxleynets.com.au/product-category/sport-nets/golf/>. 

• "It is important to note, that no golf course is entirely safe from stray golf shots. It is impossible to apply a standardized set of measurements when establishing safety envelopes for a golf course. This is in part because each golf property offers different attributes that impact the ball flight and the inability to take into account personal judgement of the golfer when executing a shot. Items such as elevation, wind and sun direction, vegetation cover, proximity to adjacent lands, hole alignment, type of golf course and golfer ability all determine the appropriate safety envelope for a hole. I have applied general industry guidelines to determine where the majority of balls will land. These general guidelines are distances that establish limits of a safety envelope surrounding a hole. These setbacks give a high degree of certainty that the majority of players will keep their shots within the confines of a golf hole. ... The following assumptions were used for the Next Nine Golf Course.  The proposed nine-hole course is not of championship expertise but more of a short or executive style, frequented by cottagers, vacation players and local residents. Typically a short or executive style course is shorter in length and is more forgiving to the average and high handicap player.  With this type of player in mind I have used a turning point of 235m (255 yards) to determine the center of the fairway on a par 4. This is in contrast to 250m (273 yards) used on championship or regular length courses. ... 3.0 Establishing a Safety Envelope: The term safety cone is used to describe an imaginary cone shape formed by the point at which a golf shot is hit from the tee with two outward lines projecting from either side of this point. The two sides of the cone represent left and right margins between which the majority of golf balls are likely to travel. Safety envelopes include the safety cone extending from tee area and continuing to include an area all around the green. The limits of the safety envelope are the area around the teeing area, the two side margins of the safety cone, the continuing width to the green and an area around the green. The envelope depicts the area in which golf balls are most likely to fall and come to rest. This envelope is not an absolute limit and balls can go beyond this limit. Identifying the key sections of a golf hole will provide a better idea of how a hole is laid out. The first area is the tee area, followed by the target area and finally the green area. In the case of par 3’s the target area is the green area. When placing a hole we locate a flight line originating from the most highly used tee and running down the middle of the hole. At a point of 235m (255 yards) from the tee we mark a turning point (or pivot point). From this point the hole may continue straight, left or right. From this turning point our flight line continues to the centre of the green in the case of a par 4. For each hole a safety envelope will be established based on no tree cover. The envelope will then be adjusted to reflect the presence of tree cover (woodlot) between the hole and an adjacent boundary. See drawing numbers Spray Analysis_1 and Spray Analysis_2. ... To determine the safety envelope perpendicular distances are measured at certain points along the flight line as it travels the length of the hole. Beginning at the tee, boundaries adjacent to tees can be 20-25metres (65-82 feet) from the flight line. These measurements are based on not having any tree cover between the flight line and the property boundary. As the right margin of the safety cone leaves the tee area it is gradually angled away from the flight line to a 60m (196 feet) perpendicular distance at a point 137m (450 feet) from the tee. This 60m (196 feet) setback is required because of the proximity of the hole to a transportation corridor. This envelope limit will continue the length of the hole maintaining that 60m perpendicular distance, until approaching the green. At the green I have reduced the 60m measurement to 45m (147 feet) because the golfer is hitting a shorter shot into the green, using the assumption that they have more control. For safety behind a green site a minimum of 30metres (99 feet) from the edge of the green to the property line is required. ...": Cam Tyers, 'Golf Ball Spray and Safety Analysis: Big Bay Point Golf Club' (Cam Tyers Design, June 2018) <https://s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-canada/5dde45509402f77a0e49a63cf76b503c4665369d/original/1585947429/2018.06.01_D09-2017-005_173_201_225_Big_Bay_Point_Road_Golf_Ball_Spray_Analysis_%28ID_329883%29.pdf_b961f2c2a575bb096a97fb657588a549?1585947429>, archived at <https://perma.cc/Q3MK-W5UQ>. 

• "TWG – How do you design for a walking golfer’s enjoyment if a client has made it clear that they are a priority? DC – The key to designing a golf course that can be easily walked is to make the distances between the green of one hole and the tee of the next hole as short as possible, while keeping in mind safety concerns. It is also important to design the course routing in such a way that severe slopes or elevations changes are utilized on downhill holes and more gradual slopes and elevation changes are used on uphill holes. It is also important to make uphill climbs in stages whenever possible, rather than all at once.": 'Q&A with Golf Course Architect Doug Carrick' (The Walking Golfers Society, 7 June 2009) <https://thewalkinggolfer.com/doug_carrick_q_a.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/pCahf>. 

• 'LGCC Golf Course Review' (Golf Design Services Ltd, September 2024) <https://www.lloydminster.ca/media/zmkd1b4r/2024lgcc-golf-course-review.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/X96T-JQHX>.   

• 'Toronto Golf Course Operational Review' (City of Toronto - Parks, Forestry & Recreation, 2022) <https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-174602.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/36L6-FRUF>; See also, 2021 Report, <https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/9892-review-city-golf-course-operations-what-we-heard-report-phase-1.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/E8C3-S5FC>: "... Consider safety in trail design and golf course redesign. Introducing trails onto golf course sites require additional safety considerations as trail users may interject and pose risk of injury during golf play. ... Complementary Programming o Participants expressed openness to complementary programming and uses that do not impede golf play and considers user safety in the midst of golf play and golf course operations". 

• Owen Russell and Al Schwemler, 'Practice facility upgrades: A tale of two clubs' (GCM, 22 October 2020) <https://gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/golf-practice-facility-renovations>, archived at <https://archive.md/BkDw2>. 

• "... Interface with Lakeview Golf Course The subject lands abut the 7th hole of the Lakeview Golf Course on their eastern extent. The centre line of the 7th hole runs within 22 m (72 ft.) of the common property line. The proximity, orientation of the hole and the typical field of play all contribute to golf balls leaving the course and entering onto the subject property with some degree of regularity. The applicant has prepared a Heritage Impact Statement/Golf Course Study in support of the proposed development to in part evaluate the impact of the proposed development on this heritage resource and to determine the level of impact associated with ejected golf balls on the subject lands. The report recommends a 50 m (164 ft.) setback to the nearest residential property from the centre line of the 7th hole. Also in support of this setback, the applicant has prepared an interface study which counted the number of ejected golf balls and their general location relative to the number of rounds played. The Planning and Building Department and Community Services Department have reviewed these materials and are not satisfied with the provided information. The studies fail to address the terms of reference for preparation of such studies, satisfactorily support the proposed 50 m (164 ft.) setback recommendation or outline other measures which could be implemented to mitigate the potential impacts of ejected golf balls on the personal health and safety of new residents. The shortcomings in the studies are significant enough that conclusions cannot be made about the appropriateness of the proposed 50 m (164 ft.) centre line setback, the location and orientation of rear yard amenity spaces and dwelling units and whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to ensure an acceptable level of personal safety of potential residents. Accordingly, the applicant has been requested to revise the studies to accurately map the location of errant golf balls exiting the golf course, to conduct a more fulsome review of applicable and accepted standards, to investigate additional mitigation measures which could be utilized and to have a qualified consultant make conclusions and recommendations based upon the full breadth of information being requested. ...": 'Information Report Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications To permit 47 townhouse dwellings under standard condominium tenure' (Mississauga, Planning and Development Committee, No. OZ 07/019 W1, 29 June 2009) <http://www5.mississauga.ca/agendas/planning/2009/06_29_09/Item04OZ07019W1Rpt.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/HD9A-4ZG3>. 

• "... 6.0 Patterns for a Resort development There are many patterns like courses surrounded by housing. Golf loop of 18- holes. Club house with 9 holes, practice field and support facilities. Moreover, there is the option o f a golf corridor development including some Real Estate development and hotel or cluster development. The former is old fashioned and it is avoided due to safety issues, contrary the latter is a preferred one. Safety issues should also be addressed at the design or master planning stage. Tees should not be too close to residential development, as this gives rise to boundary problem. Natural spots like lakes should not be widely used, as this discourages players to play in a specific area.": Andreou Giorgina, 'Golf development in Cyprus and management: Linking the investment and operational concerns' (MSc Thesis, University College London, September 2006) 43.  ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,  U593844.

• "The landscape components of the typical golf course are outlined above. Tees are relatively level turfgrass areas that function as the space where the golfer begins each hole. They generally range around 1,000- 2,000 square feet, but can be much smaller or larger depending on the course’s design. Often, there are two or three teeing areas on each hole to accommodate players of varying skill levels, i.e. people who hit the ball shorter distances generally start play of each hole closer to the target green. Since the green is the ultimate end of each hole, tees reside at the opposite end of the fairway than the green of the same hole. As shown in the diagram, the tee for each subsequent hole is usually close to the previous green to allow for efficiency of play. Originally teeing areas were in the same space used for the putting green, the procedure was to place the ball as nearest as possible to the previous hole to hit the first shot for the next hole (Browning, 21). Gradually players realized the value of separating these two functions on the golf course because a smooth putting surface was preferred and tee shots can make divots in the ground that disrupt the roll of a putt. As further safety and maintenance considerations came to the forefront, the two areas were made into separate spaces on the vast majority of courses. ... The fairway is the main avenue of play from tee to green. Typically the fairway is a 125’-150’ wide strip of quarter to half-inch-long turfgrass running down the center of a larger concentric gradient of vegetation which progresses outwardly from fairway, to rough, to naturalized area, to vegetative buffer (fig. 1.3). Fairway length can range from 80-600 yards, and greatly determines the ‘par’ value for a hole, usually being either a par 3, 4, or 5. The topography of the fairway is generally flat or canted to one side, but often includes rolling undulations and landing plateaus to provide for more interesting roll and bounce of the ball, and more challenging stances and shots. Common turfgrasses used in this region for fairways are bentgrass and bermudgrass. Spatially, having several holes subsequent and adjacent to each other creates a familiar landscape pattern unique to golf courses. Walking along the intended line of play there is an obvious sequence to the space. If you walk perpendicular to the way the holes are laid out, there is often an alternating pattern of open space, tree buffer, open space, tree buffer, and so on. These ‘green hallways’ that make up a typical golf hole can be 130-160 yards wide or more, from buffer to buffer. Even holes that lack vegetative buffer on one or both sides require some amount of space between holes for safety and liability purposes. Though fairway turf is not kept as intensively as the greens, it is still mown relatively short and receives maintenance several times a week, if not daily. Having a narrow fairway typically makes a golf-hole play more difficult, and can accentuate the spatial quality of enclosure, especially if the tree buffers are narrow. ..." Nicholas W Yoder, 'Changing course: Repurposing golf landscapes for wildlife habitat and recreation' (MLA Thesis, University of Maryland College Park, 2015) 2-4. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,  2015. 10012620.

• "PLANS for a golf club to reconfigure parts of its course due to a proposed massive motorway remodelling scheme around Simister Island have been passed. Pike Fold in Unsworth, which describes itself as 'north Manchester's premier golf club' due to its professional standard greens, has permission to alter seven of its 18 holes. In a planning application to Bury council, the club said changes to the course layout Pike next to were needed due to 'the impact of the Simister Island development along the M60 to maintain safety margins from the encroaching motorway widening'. They added: "It has now been agreed that the safest option for all concerned would be to move the greens further from the affected boundary." The works will include changes to holes 1, 2, 6, 10, 15, 17 and 18. Among the work requested is filling in existing bunkers and building new ones. ...": 'Golf Club to Change Course by Motorway' (Manchester Evening News, 4 November 2024) 7. 

> See also, Chris Gee, 'Golf club forced to change course due to 'encroachment' from £340m Simister Island motorway project' (Manchester Evening News, 7 September 2024) <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/golf-club-reconfigure-course-due-29885036>, archived at <https://archive.is/bsTiH>. 

• "... DAVID Jones isn't just the tall, elegant Bangor professional who strode the fairways of the European Tour with such distinction in the '70s and '80s. He's also a hugely respected golf course designer. To his surprise, he has designed 32 courses and seen 19 of those projects built in places as diverse as Ireland, Kenya, Tanzania, Turkey and Finland. Now he's hoping to begin work on a new championship golf course close to his old Bangor stomping ground at Hillsborough in Co. Down next year. First mooted back in 2001, the project was mothballed as it hit a series of obstacles, not least of which was recent economic meltdown. But with many of those problems now solved, the economy on the mend and Northern Ireland set to host the 2019 Open Championship, golf is an inviting investment. "In 2001, I was put in touch with a dairy farmer named David Wilson who had this idea that a golf course might be a better and more profitable use of his land," Jones told Golf Course Architecture. "We talked over two or three years, while he tried to get some other partners involved. Eventually he put the whole thing together with advice from numerous parties, including myself. The final plans included real estate, leisure facilities, and hoteliers." A series of setbacks prevented the project getting off the ground but Wilson did not give up and defeated the red tape and other obstacles to make it viable proposition once more. "I had done and revised the golf course layout numerous times to incorporate the various real estate ambitions of the site," said Jones, who has not had to make major changes to his plans. "The original plans will be fine, but it may need a few tweaks here and there to ensure safety margins for residents are okay with the upgraded real estate ambitions. "The project has good momentum at the moment and political support too, so I am hoping we might be able to make a 2017 start, but I guess it depends to some degree on the participation of a Hotel group. "It would be a great opportunity for the right operator as Hillsborough is one of the most historic and best presented towns in Ulster, full of good pubs and restaurants and with plenty to do." It will certainly make a change for Jones to create a course so close to home. "It'll be nice to get something closer to home going again," said the PGA Master professional, who will celebrate his 70th birthday next June. "It's a nice piece of land. It's largely farmland but it's nicely populated with some mature trees, streams, and it has nice undulation. It's very well located just outside Belfast on the main Dublin to Belfast road. "The course would be strong enough for a Tour event, but it's more geared to membership and should be a good example of parkland golf."": 'David Jones to design a new championship course in Hillsborough: BRIEFS' (Irish Independent, 8 December 2016) 5 <https://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/david-jones-to-design-a-new-championship-course-in-hillsborough/35277190.html>, archived at <https://archive.is/LNNqf>. 

• "... There are no hard and fast rules. You have to develop your own guidelines you feel are defensable in court. However, Hurdzan's "Golf Course Arch" and Muirhead and Rando's "Golf Course Development and Real Estate" provide explicity guidelines that work pretty good for most situations. What I've been told by our lawyers is that a lawsuit boils down to expert witnesses giving their opinion about the safety of a design. ... As Jeff alluded, lawsuits come down to expert witnesses.  Most architects believe that a safety standard published in a book is a bad thing, because a witness could come in and prove, that your design is one inch short of a printed standard, and you may be liable, even if the situation actually makes sense otherwise and is safe. ASGCA thought about putting out safety standards in the 70's, but were advised against by attornies for reasons above.  The last time we met with European architects, they were hot to do the same thing (in 2000) but we couldn't talk them out of it.  Maybe someone over there could get you a copy. Most architects do start with standards about in line with Rando or Hurdzan's though.  The more interesting aspect to me is not pure separation, but angles of play.  There are certain zones, usually about 15 degrees each side of intended line of play where most shots land.  I have long contended that some of the genius of Ross routings can't be replicated today, because he was not afraid to put a tee adjacent to fairway landing zone while creating his "fan shaped" routings.  The tendency today is to line up tees and greens a bit more to keep high concentration zones like tees away from critical areas. ...  Don't know if that makes sense to a guy who's been hit in the head with a golf ball. :)  I took a similar hit, and decided to be a golf course architect.  People assume  architects are goofy anyway, so what better job to cover it up? ;) My take on court cases is that the golfer assumes risk in playing golf unless he can prove that the design of the course unreasonably put him/her in danger.  Something like crossing fairways would be easy to prove, I assume.  I have heard of cases where cart paths come around a blind corner into common play zones leading to lawsuits, as another example. Too close together?  I defended one case by showing aerial photos of all the most famous courses in the area, which naturally were older, and tighter.  The jury seemed to buy the argument "if it's okay for that club, it's okay for this" over technical arguments about feet of separation or angles of play, which they don't understand. ... Forget strategy.  Like it or not, safety is the most important consideration when building a golf course. There are no hard-and-fast industry standards, but there certainly are a number of guidelines or "unwritten standards" that most architects seem to gravitate towards. The 15 degree rule mentionned earlier is a good one.  We also use separation distances.  60 metres from centre-line to property line or tee at the landing area.  50 metres from centre of green to property line or adjoining tee.  80 metres between centre-lines themselves. Unlike what Jeff said (although I might have misunderstood), we like to offset our holes (and thus our landing areas) rather than lining them up, especially when land is tight.  To illustrate, if the tee area is the base of a "V", the best way to tightly place another tee (another "V") would be in the opposite direction, like so: V^ , with landing areas opposite tees. Other important factors influencing safety are trees, which increase safety.  Others are elevation changes (down=more dangerous, up=safer), wind direction, and slice-side vs hook-side. The actual design of the hole also has a dramatic influence on safety.  If you're gonna have a lake (or any other hazard) on once side of a golf hole, you'd better make sure you've got a bunch of room on the opposite side where golfers will bail out (on purpose or out of subconscious fear).  Conversely, if you want to keep golfers away from homes, stick a lake between them ($$$ adds value to the lots as well $$$). Mounds are dangerous.  You can't see beyond them, and they sure won't stop a power slice. ...": 'Player Safety and Golf Course Design', Forum, Golf Atlas <https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4661.msg88999.html#msg88999>, archived at <https://archive.is/D0g97>. 

• ?'FLL Group for Guidelines for Golf Course Construction': 'Competence in Urban Planning, Landscape Architecture and Leisure Activities' (Deutsche Golf Holding Ltd & Goep LA Limited) <https://www.landschaftsarchitektur-heute.de/_resources/documents/default/1-500950-10464-1354814220.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/7WYF-XBLC>.

•  'Who should get the credit?- Golf Course Architects, Golf Clubs or Lawyers?', Golf Club Atlas, Forum, 2020 <https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69132.msg1659013.html#msg1659013>, archived at <https://archive.is/qBk9p>. 

• 'Safety Standards for Course Design', Golf Club Atlas, Forum, 2009 <https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42390.msg906565.html#msg906565>, archived at <https://archive.md/TWlgs>. 

• 'Golf architecture and ethics', Golf Club Atlas, Forum, 2002 <https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,2096.msg40720.html>, <https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,2096.25.html>, <https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,2096.50.html>. 

• Desi Isaacson, 'What are template holes? Here’s why they are still so important to golf design' (Golf.com, 19 January 2020) <https://golf.com/travel/what-are-template-holes-important-golf-design/>. 

• 'Safety on the Golf Course' (Strawberry Hill Golf Club, Webpage) <https://shgolf.co.uk/safety-on-the-golf-course>, archived at <https://archive.md/ogXGY>: "... Strawberry Hill Golf Course is a historic golf course that was planned before current design safety guidelines. Many tees and greens are very close together as are the centrelines of fairways. Golfers are put on warning that extra care is needed. Particular attention MUST be paid by every golfer to ensure that if they are about to take a shot it is safe to do so. The course is surrounded by housing, a martial arts centre, a children’s playground and a junior school. Golfers are required to take extra care that shots played do not result in balls leaving the golf course which might damage or injure surrounding residents, their property or others in the vicinity. ...".

• Reference to 'Dr Alister Mackenzie's guidelines': 'SQA Advanced Unit specification - Golf Course Management: Design and Construction of Golf Course Features' (Scottish Qualification Agency) 4 <https://www.sqa.org.uk/files/acd/HW8147.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/GE4B-V8GW>. 

• "THERE are many challenges facing the game and our profession, including: environmental issues; the availability and affordability of golf as society becomes more and more urbanized; a legal system that increasingly complicates liability, the rules of the game, and the equipment that is part and parcel of the game itself; the negative image of the game by non-golfers; and many others.... But, perhaps larger than any of the current day-to-day issues of the game is what I perceive to be a continuing narrower myopic view of the game and particularly of the golf course. The parameters of an "acceptable" golf course continue to become more rigid and narrowly focused. We, as golf architects, must resist this myopic vision of the course and expand the envelope of accepted standards. It is of considerable concern that the parameters of a great golf course must be (a) 7,000 yards in length, (b) must have 2 par 3's and 2 par 5's on each nine, (c) must have returning 9's, (d) must have fairways that provide perfect lies, (e) must have "fairways" that are "well defined," (f) must have greens that are puttable and "fair" at some arbitrary reading on a stimp meter, (g) must have small greens for short holes and large greens for long holes, (h) must have greens that are visible from the fairway, (i) must have trees on all sides of each hole, (j) must be considered "fair" by the score oriented professional, (k) etc., etc., etc.,... in a continuously growing list of arbitrary standards that push us further from the origins and the very essence of the game. What has happened to the original concept of the game? The game started as an obstacle course, played over natural terrain. It was the play's option to choose a route and strategy to get from point A to point B. There were random obstacles and no "defined path." Even today there is no such thing as "fairway" in the rules of the game. The game, for hundreds of years, was played "through the green." The modern day course is looking much more like a bowling alley, with a narrow strip of "fairway" flanked by the occasional hazard near the "defined" landing area. One only need to play several of the ancient links courses to realize how exciting and fun this game can be. These early courses have withstood the test of time because they continue to emulate life itself. The closer the game and a golf course can emulate life, the greater it's appeal and fascination. A great course, like life, presents obstacles and hazards. Some are visible and allow one to formulate a strategy in an attempt to avoid them. Some obstacles are not visible and present themselves at random. What often appears as the most direct route to your objective is often not as easy as envisioned. Such unexpected events must be dealt with to the best of our ability at the time they present themselves. Some routes appear safe from a distance but later present such subtle complications that one doesn't fully understand until completely entangled. Some hazards appear difficult, but prove to be playable. Others that look safe prove to be a disaster. Some hazards, as in life, are inescapable. Golf (the game) however, always allows the player to survive. When you find yourself lost or in an inescapable hazard you simply drop a new ball and continue to play. Random luck is always a factor. A golf course should not be "totally defined" with a clear path to one's goal. Such is not real life nor real golf. Some shots must be played on intuition and faith. Without some mystery and without significant obstacles, the golf course would have no appeal. The concept of a defined "fairway" to one's destination may sound appealing, but in the long run will never hold the fascination, excitement, mystery, and enjoyment of the game played as an obstacle course through nature. Life is often unclear with unknown or constantly changing goals. Golf, on the other hand, provides the immensely attractive feature of a fixed and known objective. The game always allows one to finish and return to start anew. We cannot reduce the golf course to a standard predictable venue. A great course must always call for courage, skill, strategy, self-control, a test of temper, and a revealer of character. Let us not reduce the game to simply a test of swing execution. If swing execution is the ultimate examination, we need only to construct high tech driving ranges. Golf and a golf course must be far more than a theater to perfect execution. A golf course must, like life, offer problem solving, intrigue, mystery, the ability to be creative, the opportunity to experiment, challenge your limits, and test your character. It should therefore come as no surprise that I believe the British Open to be a far more interesting and exciting venue than its U.S. counterpart. There are numerous combined forces and trends that seem to constantly narrow the concept of the golf course: the concept of par itself; the real estate dominated economics which create forces to minimize space and maximize frontage; the score oriented professional players that dominate the golf press and public opinion; the U.S.G.A. set-up of the Open; and even the modern day course rating systems with consensus building structures. All of these and more contribute directly to a narrower and narrower definition of the golf course. I believe we must constantly push for an expanded concept of what golf could and should be. Why, for example, must a course be 18 holes? The game did not start that way. Any number of holes was acceptable for hundreds of years. Just imagine the number of new facilities that could be available if golfers accepted the concept of a 6, 11, or 15 hole golf course. Just imagine the environmental issues that would quickly disappear if such were acceptable. In closing, I encourage all of you to join me in Scotland next year and reacquaint yourself with the original concept of the golf course. ....": Donald Knott, 'Golf course design challenges becoming more intense: arbitrary standards - troublesome trends' (Speech) (1994) 60(16) Vital Speeches of the Day 500 (1 June 1994).

• Tom Fazio and Cal Brown, Golf Course Designs (Harry N Abrams, 2000). 

• Grant Wencel, 'Tips: Planning and Building a Golf Course' (2001) March Golfdom 70 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/2001mar70.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/SL66-2ZNE>. 

• 'Golf Courses - Schedule of Values (Yadkin County, 2009) <https://www.yadkincountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/783/Section-12?bidId=>, archived at <https://perma.cc/LG52-LYV2>. 

• Todd Styles, 'Navigating golf course design and construction' (Golf Course Magazine, June 2022) <https://gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/design-bid-build>, archived at <https://archive.is/4nYmR>. 

• 'Planning, Design and Construction' (West Virginia Golf Course Superintendents Association, Webpage) <https://wvgcsa.org/planning-design-and-construction/>, archived at <https://archive.md/9JLdX>.

• Brookwater Golf and Country Club - Brookwater Residential: Brookwater Masterplan <https://www.brookwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/8725.Brookwater.Master-Plan-A2_v9.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/SXP3-37LS> -- design incorporates trees and bush between fairway and houses, on all holes. 

• Sean Dudley, Jason Straka, 'Risk or Reward?' (Golf Course Architecture, 1 April 2006) <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/risk-or-reward>, archived at <https://archive.md/GeOif>. 

• 'Bölüm 19: Ethical Considerations in Golf Course Architecture', in THe Art of Golf Course Design: A Historical Perspective >https://www.bookbaker.com/tr/v/Book-19/8aba877e-8d44-4b6e-8cbd-afd675ba6dc2/19>, archived at <https://archive.md/3VitQ>. 

Archives - Magazines - Journals, etc.

• Michigan State University Archives: 

> Greenkeeper International - Archived Issues 1991 to 2024: <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/browse.html> (OA); See also, BIGCA search tool<https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/limiting?interface=bigga>. 

> ASGCA Gallery: <https://golfarchitects.lib.msu.edu/>. 

> STRI Bulletin, 1951 to present: <https://stri.lib.msu.edu/itb/index.htm>.

> 'Keyword: Golf course safety' (MSU Library Turfgrass Information Centre) <https://tic.lib.msu.edu/tgif/flink/KEYWORD/Golf%20course%20safety>. 

• Inside Golf Magazine (Australia), archived issues: <https://issuu.com/insidegolf>. 

[I] Golf Course Management, Maintenance

• Pace of Play, Rules, marshalling, care and control of premises, tee time intervals, etc. 

• R&A Golf Course Condition and Playability, above.

• Sustainable Golf Renovations Guidelines (GEO Foundation for Sustainable Golf, 2023) <https://sustainable.golf/assets/media/files/Developments/Construction%20Support/GEO%20Renovations%20Guide_FINAL%20WEB.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9H8W-KZ8P>. 

• Rocky O Powell and Jeffrey B Jollie, Environmental Guidelines for the Design and Maintenance of Golf Courses (Maryland Department of Env. Protection and Res. Mngmt) <https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/nps-ordinanceuments-e4-golf-course.pdf>. 

• Sam Weinman, 'The idiot's guide to course management' (Australian Golf, 8 March 2024) <https://www.australiangolfdigest.com.au/low-net-strategy/>, archived at <https://perma.cc/8KPP-6N6Z>. 

• Stewart Brown and John Fry, 'Golf Course Condition and Playabiliy Beyond the Greens' (2022) 14(1) International Turfgrass Society Research Journal 40-6 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/its2.73>. 

• Dave Vanslette, 'Mastering the Pace of Play: Top Golf Course Management Tips' (Fairway iQ, 9 December 2023) <https://www.fairwayiq.com/blog/mastering-the-pace-of-play-top-golf-course-management-tips>, archived at <https://perma.cc/GZX9-8Q6R>. -- "setting appropriate tee time intervals... Tee time intervals play a pivotal role in maintaining a consistent flow of play and reducing congestion on the golf course. These intervals refer to the duration between each group of golfers starting their round on the course, and they should be carefully considered to strike a balance between accommodating the maximum number of players and preventing overcrowding. ... A general guideline is to set intervals between 10 to 15 minutes, as this allows for sufficient time for each group to complete their round without feeling rushed or causing delays for other players. ..."

• Brendan James, 'Getting Clock-Wise on Slow Play' (Golf Australia, 6 May 2015) <https://www.golfaustralia.com.au/feature/getting-clock-wise-on-slow-play-427703>, archived at <https://archive.md/nJV23> -- citing Golf Australia’s Pace of Play Report : "... But the GA study further established that bigger clubs with a high number of members had a greater concern about pace of play than those clubs with a smaller membership. Bigger clubs also host more competition rounds, adding to the problem of pace of play. In addition to this, clubs with a more difficult golf course (measured by the respective course’s slope rating) have a higher concern about pace of play issues than easier courses. However, club administrators overwhelmingly believe that “behavioural factors within the control of the individual golfer” are largely responsible for pace of play issues, rather than club operational factors like course set-up. “Examples include golfers not being ready to play when it is their turn, pre-shot routines, not calling groups through etc,” the report says. “This suggests there are solutions readily available to improve pace of play issues but they are not being implemented due to an alternate focus on the behavioural factors of individual golfers.” Successfully educating players to pick up the pace – in comparison with course set-up or a club’s operations – is not an easy task to change in the long term. “The discussion around pace of play therefore becomes a question as to what is most important,” the report says.".

> See also, <https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/00023358-source.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5579-8CUU>. 

> ** A Report into Pace of Play at Australian Golf Clubs (Golf Australia, GBAS, 2015) <http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00023357-source.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/7C93-KEWX>. 

• Environmental impact, safety, community impact:

> Eg, 'Management Plan July 1st 2021 to June 30th 2024' (Sea View Golf Club, Cottesloe) <https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/Profiles/cottesloe/assets/moduledata/consultations/a1c780ca-39ab-4f16-b6dc-36c04e431fe0/1.1/SVGC-Management-Plan-2021-2024-FINAL-DRAFT.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/V83S-3GWD>; see also, <https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/consultations/past/sea-view-golf-course-management-plan>. 

• Jon Allbutt and John Davis, 'Health and Safety in Golf Course Management and Maintenance' (The Greenkeepers Training Committee, 2007) <http://www.hoyocero.com.ar/Salud-y-seguridad-en-la-gesti%C3%B3n-y-mantenimiento-de-campos-de-golf-6054369.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/NN5H-HJUJ>. 

> See also, 'Revised guide to managing health and safety' (Golf Business News, 26 October 2007) <https://golfbusinessnews.com/news/management-topics/revised-guide-to-managing-health-and-safety/>, archived at <https://archive.is/uzoB4>. 

> Sami Collins, 'Learning & Development', Greenkeeper International 11 December 2007, p11 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/bigga/gki/article/2007dec11.pdf>. 

• Steve Eisenberg, 'Using Risk Management as a Tool for Accident Prevention in the Resort Golf Area' (2007) 25(1) Hospitality Review 77 <https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=hospitalityreview>. 

• 'Golf Course Operations and Maintenance: Muriwai Golf Project' (NZ Sports Turf Institute & Steve Marsden Turf Services, 25 November 2021) <https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/ResourceConsentDocuments/08BUN60393755%20Appendix%203%20GC%20Operations%20and%20maintenance%20report.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/3JG9-8NS7>. 

• Introductory course: 'Golf Course Management: Best Practices' (Coursera, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) <https://www.coursera.org/learn/golf-turf-management-best-practices>, archived at <https://archive.is/JACC2>. 

• Workplace Safety - Trees - branch - Latrobe Golf Club, Scott Irving - Worksafe Victoria: Terry Muir, 'Let me tell you a story' (2019) 21(2) Australian Turfgrass Management Journal 52-5 <https://d.lib.msu.edu/austm/222/OBJ/view#page=54>, archived at <https://perma.cc/VJB6-6LNF>.  

• * Jeff Chaltas, 'Maintaining the maintenance facility: Original design makes all the difference: Adequate space, safe working conditions, easy access, cleanliness and neatness. These are the hallmarks of today's functional, efficient and pleasant "golf course management centers"' (1987) 55(4) Golf Course Management 38-9, 42, 44, 48, 50, 52 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/1987apr38.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/B2WW-M3H2>. 

• Rob Thomas, 'Safety First: Course Management Confronts Liability Issues and Takes Steps to Protect Assets' (2006) Feb Golf Course News 44, 46, 48 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/2006feb44.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/AB5X-88PN>. 

• Ted Horton, 'Risk Management Plan can Prevent Accidents, Litigation' (2002) Apr Golf Course News 8-9 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/2002apr8d.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/QE5P-M6PH>. 

• Rick Kaiser, 'Golf Course Maintenance Safety ...' (1984) The Florida Green 44-6 <https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/flgre/article/1984spr42.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/9YA6-LCXG>. 

[#] Criminal Liability

• left in a public place golf ball filled with explosives: R v Dell [2016] QCA 257. 

> Courtney Wilson, 'Ipswich golf ball bomb-maker gets four years' jail over 'catastrophic' explosions' (ABC, 9 December 2015) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/ipswich-golf-ball-bomb-maker-gets-four-years-jail/7015212>. 

• Spun and threw golf club in frustration at poor form bad game, hitting person in head, on course, grievous bodily harm: R v Betts [2011] QCA 244.

> 'Man to face trial over golf injury' (The Courier Mail, 26 October 2010) <https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/sunshine-coast/man-to-face-trial-over-golf-injury/news-story/41a7efda4574f953b700cf6378bc7476>. 

> Mark Oberhardt, 'Angry golfer cripples playing partner' (The Courier Mail, 20 September 2011) <https://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/angry-golfer-cripples-playing-partner/news-story/253d7784839bd0dc6be1ebd4426ca36d>.

> "17. The second decision of R v Betts involved an applicant who had seriously and permanently injured a friend during a golf game. The applicant had vented his anger and frustration during the golf game without regard to the risk of inflicting injury on those in the golfing party. He became increasingly frustrated and ultimately in a fit of rage threw his club which struck the complainant on the side of his head causing catastrophic brain injury. As a result of the brain injury, the complainant’s executive functioning was severely impaired. The Court agreed with the sentencing judge that the degree of negligence was high, even though he had not deliberately intended to hurt the complainant. The applicant was 26 years old at the time of the offence and 27 years old at the time of sentence. He had been in full time employment and his only criminal history related to minor drug matters, a charge of wilful damage and some traffic matters. Despite the catastrophic injuries, the Court did not interfere with a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of two years.": R v Hogan [2015] QCA 151.

• Carla Howarth, 'Golfer sentenced to two a half years jail for club attack on fellow player' (ABC News, 5 October 2017) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-05/launceston-golf-club-attacker-sentenced/9019588>. 

• Golf cart use: Eg, Jasmine Kazlauskas, 'Robbie Awad found not guilty in Hamilton Island golf buggy case' (News.com.au, 6 July 2024) <https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/robbie-awad-found-not-guilty-in-hamilton-island-golf-buggy-case/news-story/4e9048c741424184cf40d4a6814caa05>. 

• Anthony Podosky, 'Civil and Criminal Liabililty of Players' (Working Paper, QUT, 1994) <https://eprints.qut.edu.au/53131/1/53131P.pdf>. 

• Malaysia - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means — Golf club used to inflict serious head injuries: Mat Alias bin Mat Jusoh v Public Prosecutor [2000] MLJU 119. 

[%] Misc

• Brad Clifton, '‘IT’S TRULY AWFUL’: Aussie prodigy Jeff Guan seriously injured in NSW Open qualifier, undergoes emergency eye surgery' (Australian Golf Digest, 21 September 2024) <https://www.australiangolfdigest.com.au/its-truly-awful-aussie-prodigy-jeff-guan-seriously-injured-in-nsw-open-qualifier-undergoes-emergency-eye-surgery/>, archived at <https://archive.md/MLc1I>. 

• Brad Clifton, '‘ALL I CAN SEE IS BLACK’: Jeffrey Guan details long journey ahead in first interview since horrific eye injury' (Australian Golf Digest, 31 October 2024) <https://www.australiangolfdigest.com.au/all-i-can-see-is-black-jeff-guan-details-long-journey-ahead-in-first-interview-since-traumatic-eye-injury/>, archived at <https://archive.is/qIPZw>. 

• Australian Adventure Activity Standard and related Good Practice Guides (Webpages) <https://australianaas.org.au/>. 

• References to judicial mediation in matter involving Huntington and Kew Golf Club, tree fell: 

> Mark Santomartino, 'Former cricketer sues golf club after being paralysed by fallen tree' (Nine News, 10 October 2017) <https://www.9news.com.au/national/former-cricketer-sues-golf-club-after-being-paralysed-by-fallen-tree/aeded3ab-993b-40d7-a002-cd8f9f5cc8e8?, archived at <https://archive.md/eVu5L>.  

> 'Secret payout made to injured golfer' (Herald Sun, 26 October 2017)<https://heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/kew-golf-club-pays-injured-golfer-in-confidential-agreement/news-story/cf5a25b36abb37b519014c9e174df7bd#:~:text=A%20MELBOURNE%20golf%20club%20has%20made%20a%20secret%20payout%20to,doors%20with%20Ian%20Huntington%2C%2085>: "A MELBOURNE golf club has made a secret payout to a member who became a paraplegic after a cypress tree fell on him on a fairway, trapping him underneath. Kew Golf Club left it until the final days of a costly Supreme Court civil trial to settle the matter behind closed doors with Ian Huntington, 85."

• Michael Bamberger, 'His death on a golf course is inexplicable. His 25 years of life are an inspiration' (Golf.com, 28 December 2024) <https://golf.com/news/features/death-golf-course-inexplicable-inspiration/>, archived at <https://archive.md/ui2vc>. 

• Meredith Boos, 'The Links to Cancer: How Golf Became Dangerous and What We Can do to Save the Game' (Undergraduate Thesis, University of Minnesota, 2023) <https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1433&context=utpp>. 

• Brandon Johnson, 'Is it Hard or Is it Good' (2023) 74 Golf Course Architecture 40, 41 <https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue74/41/>: "Contours, or the angle one finds themself attacking the contour, may suggest a play away from the intended target. Executing that prudent play to safety is not difficult. The difficulty lies in the decision, choosing the wise play and wrestling with the psychological mind game such situations create. For some reason golfers feel entitled to have a free go at the pin no matter the angle, lie or stance, so the insertion of a contour that suggests counter to this mindset is often viewed as extreme, gimmicky or too difficult. ...".

• 'Golf Course Construction' (Programmed, Webpage) <https://programmed.com.au/service/property-building-maintenance/turnpoint/golf-course-construction/>, archived at <https://archive.md/DzPPB>. 

• A D Murray et al, 'The relationships between golf and health: a scoping review' (2016) 51(1) British Journal of Sports Medicine 12-19 <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5256129/>. 

• Golf club liquor licensing - take home service: Loxton Golf Club [2018] SALC 66 <https://www.licensingcourt.sa.gov.au/download.cfm?downloadfile=F868F4F0-B0B4-11E8-8F904201C0A8012D&typename=dmFile&fieldname=filename >.  

• Julie Therese Knutsen, 'True Links: Precursory Lessons from Golf for Effective Financial Behaviour' (2017) 3(1) Financial Planning Research Journal 12 <https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/206445/FPRJ-V3-ISS1-pp12-25-true-links-precursory-lessons-from-golf.pdf>. 

• Membership - disputes: 

> Sanctuary Cove Golf And Country Club Pty Ltd v Machon [2017] QCAT 271; See also, Sanctuary Cove Golf and Country Club Pty Ltd (ACN 120 308 410) v Machon [2019] QCATA 1.

> Brown v Marron [2001] WASC 100. 

• "69. On Sunday, 19 April, the plaintiff was due to play golf at the Botany Golf Club of which he had been a member for many years. Early that morning he received a phone call from one of his fellow players who advised him not to play that day because there were people armed with baseball bats waiting for him at the second hole.": Vaughan v Patrick Stevedores [2001] NSWSC 1126.

• 'Golf Ball Death: Daughter's Pain Recalled' (Sydney Morning Herald, 19 April 2007) <https://www.smh.com.au/national/golf-ball-death-daughters-pain-recalled-20070419-gdpxzv.html>. 

• Forensic rallies in Court, analogy with golf cf tennis: "... 25. It has always been my view that, if a sporting analogy was ever appropriate to be adopted for litigation as is involved in these proceedings, such an analogy would be with a game of tennis - with the length and intensity of the (forensic) rallies being, in part, dependent on the evidence advanced and the replies to it and, also in part, on the skill of the analysis and submission of the advocates on behalf the parties. 26. The nature of the opening skirmish demonstrated by Bushfire Survivors’ Points of Claim and Notice to Admit Facts, and the formal and informal responses to them from the EPA, evidence that, at least at this preliminary stage, tennis was an inapt sporting analogy, and that golf might be a better one - with, at the present time, the parties playing different holes, with one being on the front nine of the course, with the other to be seen, figuratively, to be playing on the back nine of that course. Thus, there was not immediately apparent a coherent and appropriately defined “match” or contest between the parties.": Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc v Environment Protection Authority [2020] NSWLEC 152 (Moore J). 

• Essex Golf Report, 1992 <https://legacy.tendringdc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/planning/planning%20policy/SPGEssexGolfReport1992.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/S3PS-5RU8>. 

• Samuel John Robertson, 'Approach-iron play in high performance golf: From testing to tournament play' (PhD Thesis, Edith Cowan University, 2013) <https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/2332/>. 

• 'Golf Course Architecture' (AusGolf) <https://www.ausgolf.com.au/golf-architecture>. 

• University of Guelph, Maintaining Golf Courses Certificate (Online) <https://courses.opened.uoguelph.ca/public/category/courseCategoryCertificateProfile.do?method=load&certificateId=701097>, archived at <https://archive.md/F6nAp>:   

> '3101033 - Golf Course Design and Construction' <https://courses.opened.uoguelph.ca/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=15952895>, archived at <https://archive.is/VIxhI>. 

• 'Golf Course Management: Best Practices' (Coursera, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) <https://www.coursera.org/learn/golf-turf-management-best-practices>, archived at <https://archive.is/JACC2>. 

Jing Zhi is an avid golfer. Courses played: Sea View Golf Club, WA*; Bulimba Golf Club, Qld*; Virginia Golf Club, Qld*; St Lucia Golf Links, Qld; Wembley Golf Course, WA; Royal Perth Golf Club, WA; Latrobe Golf Club, Vic; Maylands Peninsula Public Golf Course, WA; Altone Park Golf Course, WA; The Vines Resort Golf Course, WA; Collier Park Golf, WA; Point Walter Golf Course, WA; Whaleback Golf Course, WA; Secret Harbour Golf Links, WA; The Par 3, Busselton WA; Geraldton Golf Club, WA. (*member/former)

Archived: 24 Dec 2024 <https://archive.is/Ci1eA>, 4 Jan 2025 <https://perma.cc/DRM6-FTMG>; 12 Jan 2025: <https://archive.is/paenk>. 

© Jing Zhi Wong, 2023-2025