Malouf v. Dall. Ath. Country Club - 837 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. App. 1992)

Rule:

The gist of trespass to personalty is an injury to, or interference with, possession, unlawfully, with or without the exercise of physical force. Destruction of, or injury to, personal property, regardless of negligence, may be a trespass. A trespass is usually regarded as an intentional tort in the sense that it involves an intent to commit an act which violates a property right, or would be practically certain to have that effect, although the actor may not know that the act he intends to commit is such a violation. Unless the intended act would violate a property right, the actor's liability for unintended consequences ordinarily depends upon proof of negligence.

Facts:

Harry Hollander and C.M. Presley bought houses which abut the number six hole of the "Gold" golf course owned and managed by DAC. Each appellant complains of damage to his car and home caused by errant golf balls from unidentified golfers. Although each appellant complained to DAC, each was told it was not DAC's policy to reimburse for damage caused by unidentified third parties. At trial, DAC general manager Robert Jones testified that the club has a procedure it follows when a golfer hits a stray shot. If notified, management will go out and inquire of groups three holes forward and three holes backward, if anyone hit the stray shot. If someone steps forward, then DAC either charges that person for the damage or puts the two parties together. DAC followed this procedure when a golf ball broke appellant Presley's window. On that day, the person who hit the ball spoke up. The Mesquite Chamber of Commerce had rented the club for that day and it reimbursed Presley on his claim. Appellants initially filed individual lawsuits in a justice of the peace court. The justice of the peace entered judgments in favor of appellants. DAC appealed to the Dallas County Court at Law Number Two. In that court, the cases were consolidated for trial. After a trial de novo, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against appellants.

Issue:

Did the landowners sufficiently establish the elements of trespass?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court. In so ruling, the court of appeals held that the landowners failed to show that DAC or the individual golfers intentionally caused the golf balls to damage the landowners’ property. Instead, the court noted that individual golfers were intending to hit the ball towards a hole, and the fact that the ball sliced or hooked onto the landowners’ properties was an unintended consequence. The court of appeals held that DAC was not negligent in its design of the golf course, because it was designed so that golfers would have to hit away from the landowners’ properties.