Malouf v. Dallas Athletic Country Club

Texas Court of Appeals, Dallas · Torts

TortsTrespassNegligencetrespass to personaltyintentunintended consequencesgolf course designnegligent redesign

Facts

Appellants owned homes adjacent to the sixth hole of DAC's Gold course and claimed damage to their cars, windows, and other property from stray golf balls hit by unidentified golfers. DAC had a procedure for identifying golfers who hit stray shots and seeking reimbursement from them when possible, and in one instance a third party reimbursed Presley after the golfer admitted hitting the ball. After 1987, DAC extensively redesigned hole number six to make it less likely that balls would go right toward the homes, including moving the fairway and tee box left, changing the aiming direction, adding mounds and berms, moving hazards, planting trees, and installing six-foot photinias. The trial court found DAC did not trespass and was not negligent in redesigning the course.

Issue

Whether DAC was liable in trespass for damage caused by stray golf balls landing on appellants' property, and whether the evidence established as a matter of law or by the great weight and preponderance that DAC negligently redesigned hole number six.

Rule

Trespass to personalty is an injury to or interference with possession unlawfully, with or without physical force, and destruction of or injury to personal property may be a trespass regardless of negligence. But trespass is usually an intentional tort: it requires intent to commit an act that violates a property right, or that would be practically certain to have that effect; unless the intended act itself would violate a property right, liability for unintended consequences ordinarily depends on proof of negligence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Noah Kim parks his car beside his townhouse. On the adjoining private driving range operated by Desert Vista Links, a patron aims at a marked target in the center of the range, but the ball shanks sharply right and dents Noah’s door. Noah sues the range for trespass to personalty based solely on the property damage.

Under the majority rule, which is the best answer?

Explanation. Trespass to personalty may involve injury to personal property, but the opinion treats trespass as usually an intentional tort requiring intent to commit an act that violates a property right or is practically certain to do so. A shot intended toward a lawful target does not itself violate a neighboring property right. The shank into Noah’s car is therefore an unintended consequence, which ordinarily sounds in negligence rather than trespass.