Malouf v. Dallas Athletic Country Club
1992 WL 172205, 837 S.W.2d 674, 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 2691 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an act to constitute a trespass, the actor must intend to commit an act that violates a property right or is practically certain to do so; liability for unintended consequences of an otherwise lawful act depends upon proof of negligence, not trespass.
Facts:
- Edward Malouf, Harry Hollander, and C.M. Presley owned homes adjacent to the sixth hole of a golf course owned by the Dallas Athletic Club Country Club (DAC).
- Errant golf balls, hit by unidentified golfers, frequently struck and caused damage to the homeowners' cars and houses.
- The homeowners complained to DAC about the damage.
- DAC informed the homeowners that its policy was not to reimburse for damage caused by unidentified third parties.
- On one specific occasion, a golfer who broke Presley's window was identified, and the group that had rented the club for the day reimbursed Presley for the damage.
- After 1987, DAC commissioned professional golfer Jack Nicklaus to extensively redesign the sixth hole to make it less likely for golf balls to travel toward the adjacent homes.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Malouf, Harry Hollander, and C.M. Presley (appellants) filed individual lawsuits against Dallas Athletic Club Country Club (DAC) in a justice-of-the-peace court.
- The justice of the peace entered judgments in favor of the homeowners.
- DAC, the defendant, appealed the judgments to the Dallas County Court at Law Number Two.
- The cases were consolidated, and after a trial de novo (a new trial), the County Court at Law rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of DAC.
- The homeowners, now the appellants, appealed the take-nothing judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a golf course owner commit trespass when golf balls hit by unidentified third-party golfers land on and damage adjacent private property?
Opinions:
Majority - Lagarde, Justice.
No, a golf course owner does not commit trespass under these circumstances. Trespass is an intentional tort that requires an intent to commit an act which violates a property right, not merely an intent to perform an act that has unintended consequences. The court reasoned that individual golfers intend to hit the ball toward the hole, an act that does not in itself violate a property right. The fact that a ball may slice or hook onto adjacent property is an unintended consequence of a lawful act. Because the appellants failed to prove that either DAC or the individual golfers intentionally caused the balls to damage their property, the elements of trespass were not met. As the golfers did not commit a trespass, DAC cannot be held liable for aiding or assisting in a trespass. The court also found DAC was not negligent in its redesign of the course, as it took extensive and reasonable steps to direct play away from the homes.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the intent element for the tort of trespass in Texas, distinguishing between the intent to act and the intent for that act to violate a property right. It establishes a significant hurdle for landowners adjacent to golf courses seeking recovery under a trespass theory, as they must prove the defendant intended the physical invasion. Consequently, this shifts the focus in such cases from trespass to negligence or nuisance, where the reasonableness of the course's design and operation becomes the central issue rather than the mere fact of the balls landing on the property.
