You are currently browsing articles tagged Pennsylvania.

By: Rob Harris

Neighbors claiming an onslaught of unwelcome golf balls from neighboring golf courses are not unique. However, in a legal dispute between Pennsylvania’s Morgan Hill Golf Course and its neighbor,  the court has fashioned a novel method of verification.

Confronted with disagreements between the club and an adjoining homeowner, the court has decided the best way to determine if errant shots are ending up in the neighbor’s yard is to subject all golfers to the unerring view of a camera.Judge Michael Koury Jr. has decreed that the course must tape “all golf swings and the trajectory of all golf balls played from hole 13.”

Further details can be found here.

By: Rob Harris

Jerzy and Halina Wisniewski live on the left side of Pennsylvania’s  Morgan Hill Golf Course‘s 13th hole. In July, they convinced a court to enter an injunction barring the course from allowing balls to wind up on their property. Now, they have filed a motion for contempt, alleging that the golf balls keep coming.

The club, which moved the tee boxes forward, asserts that the laws of physics preclude the ongoing onslaught alleged by Mr. and Ms. Wisniewski. As to the bag of 50 golf balls the Wisniewski’s offered as post-injunction evidence, the club suggests they are the remainders of days gone by, and that the plaintiffs real plan is to force the club to buy their property.

Additional details can be found here.

By: Rob Harris

Pennsylvania’s Applecross Country Club maintains a seriously outdated blog on its website. Suggestion to the club: I have a great post to make your blog current.

This week, the club owner prevailed in litigation lotto when a jury awarded it $20 million. The club owner had sued developer Pulte Homes, alleging that Pulte enticed it to acquire the club with promises that it would build 1000 homes in the golf community. According to the club owner, when the economy soured, Pulte stopped building, leaving the club with millions in lost revenues and golf club membership fees.

For its part, Pulte disagreed that the contract obligated it to build so many homes.

The trial proved a bit problematic in that a key exhibit that purportedly described the intended scope of the project went missing. Nonetheless, the jury agreed with the club that the written agreement required Pulte to build the homes.

How long before the club decides to post the news on its blog?

By: Rob Harris

Four years ago, we wrote about class action lawsuits brought against Dupont, alleging that its herbicide Imprelis not only killed weeds but also pine and spruce trees. Golf courses were among the victims.

Today, Pennsylvania’s Northampton Country Club proclaims itself to be a recovered, indeed “better than ever,” victim of the Imprelis scourge.

Having opted out of the class action, which Dupont settled for $400 million, Northampton separately pursued and resolved its claims against Dupont. The club then used the proceeds to effect a full renovation of the golf course, restoring aspects that had been lost over the years.

The result appears to be a success story–”a blessing in disguise,” as described by the club president–which is chronicled here.


By: Rob Harris

According to a published report, Melissa Conde has filed suit against Pennsylvania’s Huntsville Golf Club, in which she asserts that “she was fired …after getting into an argument with a co-worker who alleged Conde used ‘F bombs’ and threatened to kill her during an event for dozens of physicians.”

While some of you may think that such conduct would in fact constitute adequate grounds for termination, Ms. Conde claims that her firing was really in retaliation for her challenging unlawful conduct by the club and its employees.

According to Ms. Conde, the club consistently asked her to work on Sundays, notwithstanding that she was a churchgoer Who, after services, “spent the rest of the day to reflect in prayer.”

In addition to her claim of religious discrimination, Ms. Conde’s complaint alleges that the club failed to expel a member after he “grazed Conde’s breast and said she looked like she would ‘qualify’ to work at his strip club.”

Employment litigation is an area fertile with factual disputes about the circumstances surrounding employment and discharge, and it appears as though Ms. Conde’s suit against Huntsville Golf Club fits this profile. Stay tuned for an answering statement from the club that likely will paint a different picture than that of Ms. Conde’s complaint.


By: Rob Harris

Perch Hankin purchased Pennsylvania’s Fairways Golf Course on May 30, 1985. Mr. Hankin opted to subdivide and sell the land on which the tees for the fifth hole were located to a developer, who constructed a house, while permitting the land to continue to be used as the fifth hole teeing ground.

Fast forward twenty-five years, by which time both the golf course and the house had new owners. In November 2010, the homeowner, who initially had complained about golf balls striking her house shortly after her 2005 purchase of the home, decided to take matters into her own hands. She erected a temporary fence across the tee boxes that prevented golfers from accessing the fifth hole tee boxes.

The golf course owner and manager filed suit, demanding that the homeowner remove the fence. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction. Down came the fence. Tee shots once again were struck on the fifth hole.

Meanwhile, the homeowner filed a host of counterclaims against the course owner and manager, claiming that they had no legal right to use the land for the teeing area since the deed provided for no easement.

Off the case went to the jury, who was charged with deciding whether the course owner had obtained a “prescriptive” right to use the land by virtue of having done so continuously since 1985, or whether the homeowner was entitled to damages from the course’s wrongful use of her land.

Faced with these seemingly inconsistent assertions, the jury came back with its verdict, proclaiming both sides winners. The jury found the golf course, indeed, had acquired prescriptive rights to use the land AND that the homeowner was entitled to $105,000 in damages.

Determining it could not logically unravel the seeming contradiction, the trial court, throwing up its hands, ordered a new trial.

The court on appeal recently upheld this decision, directing that a new trial be held.

By: Rob Harris

“Attendance at a special annual golf tournament, even one in memory of a family member, does not fall within the category excusing intentional violation of a known work rule.”

So ruled the Honorable Robert Simpson, Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

In this case, the tournament was held in honor of Jay A. Ryan Sr., father of Jay A. Ryan Jr. The younger Mr. Ryan sought to take a day off of work to attend the tournament. His request was denied by the company president on the basis that Mr. Ryan had no remaining vacation time.

Mr. Ryan nonetheless attended the tournament. He was fired from work for insubordination. His subsequent request for unemployment compensation was denied, with the court finding that his “unemployment is due to willful misconduct connected to his work.”

Before cringing at the thought of an employer refusing an employee’s request to attend his father’s memorial golf tournament, consider the following:

  • The previous month, Mr. Ryan “either left work early, or was late to work, every day for a week. In response, Employer gave Claimant a written disciplinary warning regarding his poor attendance.”
  • Mr. Ryan submitted into evidence a purported email from his boss, stating “I have reconsidered your request. You will be off August 16 for your father’s golf tournament. Instead, you will work your regularly scheduled day off on Wednesday August 14.” The boss, however, claimed that she “absolutely did not” send that email, and the tribunal apparently concluded that Mr. Ryan somehow had fabricated it.

By: Rob Harris

The attached article (which includes a copy of the federal court complaint) serves as a reminder to golf clubs that employee claims remain an ever present risk.

The plaintiff alleges that she brought her accusations of harassment to the club, but she was promptly terminated. Assuming the case does not settle, the courts ultimately will determine whether this allegation (along with the claim of harassment) is factually accurate.

While perhaps the club did conduct an internal investigation, that is not clear. The takeaway for golf clubs should be the importance of having appropriate protocols in place that provide for the investigation of claims.

By: Rob Harris

On August 3, Roger Lee Harris (no relation!) and Bryan Louis Bandes were charged with various counts of assault, following a fight that occurred on the Springdale (Pennsylvania) Golf Club course, having “become embroiled in a heated debate over the rules of golf, specifically regarding water.”

With a golf club allegedly used as a weapon by one of the combatants, it is with complete accuracy and only a small dose of iron-y that I report the case was assigned to Judge Robert Breakiron. With the golfers reportedly refusing to testify against each other (and apparently unwilling to call a violation on themselves), Judge Breakiron determined that a dismissal of all charges was in order.

According to published reports, His Honor left them with a message: “Learn how to conduct yourselves on a golf course. I don’t want you to be back again in this courtroom or I’m going to assess you two penalty strokes.”

By: Rob Harris

The website for the Springdale (Pennsylvania) Golf Club lists as one of the club’s events a “2 Man Scramble.” Based on this weekend’s widely reported ”rules dispute,” SGC should think about adding a “2 Man Rumble” to its competitions.

“According to a police news release, two golfers – one 42 years old and the other 63 – were playing together on Sunday at the Springdale Golf Course in South Union Township and ‘became embroiled in a heated debate over the rules of golf, specifically regarding water, on the fifth hole.’

“The golfers were able to resolve the issue at that time and continue playing, but another argument was “reignited” on the seventh hole ‘similarly involving rules, or lack of understanding of said rules.’”

For a local newsman’s perspective, here’s the video.


« Older entries