Indiana Supreme Court Weighs Liability in Years-Long Golf Ball Dispute
An estimated 1,500 errant golf balls land on Mitchell Schultz’s northern Indiana residential property every single year, prompting a legal battle that reached the Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday. As court documents show, the ongoing friction between the homeowner and the Sandy Pines Golf Club in DeMotte centers on whether a business can be held fully responsible for the actions of its patrons, or if property owners must bear the brunt of living near recreational facilities.
The dispute traces back to 2018 when S.P. Real Estate LLC, which operates the Sandy Pines Golf Club, added a driving range directly adjacent to property that had belonged to the Schultz family for over five decades. While the golf course itself operated for years without issue, the introduction of the driving range changed the neighborhood dynamic. According to appellate records cited by indianacapitalchronicle.com and yahoo.com, the stray projectiles shattered windows, landed in the family swimming pool, and forced Schultz to park his vehicle far down the driveway and sit beneath a protective tent when spending time in his own backyard.
Legal Arguments Before the High Court
The core of Thursday’s high court arguments questioned the application of Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act. A trial court previously found the golf course liable for trespass but assigned Schultz 95% of the fault because he acquired the property with full knowledge that golf balls were landing there. That decision was overturned in December by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which ruled that comparative fault cannot reduce liability for an intentional tort.
Appearing before the justices, Jacob Ahler, the attorney representing Schultz, clarified that his client is not pursuing financial damages. Instead, Schultz wants an injunction to stop the golf balls from entering his land entirely. That narrower focus prompted Justice Derek Molter to suggest that the court might not need to untangle the broader complexities of the state’s comparative fault statutes if the case hinges purely on stopping a continuing trespass.
Donald Shelmon, an attorney for Sandy Pines Golf Club, defended the business by arguing that individual golfers bear the responsibility for their own shots, not the facility that invites them to play. Shelmon noted that the course secured local zoning approval, hired a professional designer, and attempted to mitigate the issue by utilizing lower-flight range balls, discouraging the use of tee boxes closest to the property line, and instructing players not to clear the safety netting.
Shelmon warned that allowing the trespass finding to stand could have consequences for golfers and golf course operators elsewhere in Indiana. “It’s going to affect everyone who plays the game of golf,” he argued. “From the super senior league to the people that are just doing it, to everyone in between.”
The justices pushed back against that defense during the session. Justice Mark Massa questioned whether a business charging customers to hit golf balls can easily separate its operations from the resulting trespass. Massa and Molter also raised pointed hypotheticals, with Molter asking if a gun range could similarly deflect responsibility for stray bullets entering a neighboring kitchen window.
Supreme Court Weighs Whether to Review Appellate Ruling
Chief Justice Loretta Rush noted that the high court must first decide whether to grant transfer to review the appellate ruling. If the court denies transfer, the Court of Appeals decision will stand, sending the matter back down for further proceedings regarding potential injunctive relief and whether operations at Sandy Pines must fundamentally change—potentially involving higher protective netting or the complete closure of the driving range.
