So when did lawsuits replace baseball as our national pastime?!
Associated Press – Jul. 03, 2006:
A state appeals court on Monday ruled that a small borough cannot use its baseball field until it builds a fence to keep balls from flying into a family’s yard.
Corey S. and Kristie A. Chase live beside Ron Houben Memorial Park in Eldred, a town of fewer than 900 residents along the New York border.
Balls from the field have landed in their pool, destroyed their lawnmower and broken a car windshield. The family’s lawyer, Raymond W. Bulson, said Monday the couple was so concerned about the danger they regularly kept their two young children inside on spring and summer days.
Commonwealth Court, agreeing with a county judge, ruled 3-0 that the borough should raise a fence to protect the family.
The borough, which is the defendant in the lawsuit, had argued the family “came to the nuisance” when they moved next to the field and then exacerbated the problem by removing a line of tall evergreens that served as a natural barrier.
Natural justice demands that the borough build a living fence, say of evergreen trees, expropriating property if the owners don’t cede the required easement.
They should build the ugliest, most gaudy fence they can……
2: A giant Scientology billboard. DIANETICS: By L. Ron Hubard!
In giant LED-lit splendor. Polarized so that only people in the house can see it clearly.
Happens everywhere, sadly. In my neck of the woods there is no end of folks who’ve always had a cutting horse or two in the family. Another excuse is hunting elk in the backcountry in autumn. Usually, just a large four-footed pet.
Accepted as normal hereabouts.
My insurance agent decided to move “uptown” near the Opera a decade ago — and after a year or two decided to put in a corral and move a couple of the family horses next to his house to use for an occasional trail ride. Covenants allowed for such a thing.
But, his next-door neighbors [on their 5-acre lot], escapees from Silicon Valley, took him to court for three different trials over two different excuses — mostly because they didn’t want to see or smell what the covenants told them was possible when they bought in — in the first place.
He finally gave up and sold his home and moved back to family property farther out of town. Farther away from people who felt that litigation was as normal to their lives — as horses were to his.
When they bought the property, there were no sublets or right of ways given to the park. Everything is fine until the baseballs trespass onto their property, then they become a nuisance. A dangerous nuisance. The Court pointed out that the trees were old and dying anyway which could also make them a danger; so that rules them out. Final point, just because baseballs had been hitting the property for fifty years, doesn’t give the park any ownership rights or permission to invade the property.
Contrast this to Ed’s post. There, there was no damage being caused by the insurance agent.
Erecting a “gaudy” fence or something that will illuminate their property would also be subject to a suit. This time it would be malicious and possibly extra damages could be collected. Given the choice, I would rather have a lot of frivolous lawsuits then the “eye for an eye” or “just get even” attitudes. Our justice system is there so we don’t resort to the jungle behavior I read in # 2 and #3.
I think they should have bought a pitching machine and launched all the balls that entered their property right back where they came from. I wonder how long it would have taken for the ballpark to erect a fence if balls came flying back at them.
Point is no one likes to be bombarded by anyone. Golden rule and such.
Sheesh….
Reminds me of the “firing range” problems where people move into a neighborhood with a range that’s been there for 75 years and then complain about the noise….
One idiot went so far as to obtain some ammunition (unfired!), toss them on the ground near his home, and claim that they were strays from the range….
The solution to the ballfield case, IMHO, would have been to fix the trees….
At this point, “fix the court” may be more in order.
This has happened to many race tracks that have been around for years. They were built out in the country, then as growth expanded to the track, subdivisions, etc. were put up and the tracks were shut down. Hardly seems fair, to move next to a “nuisance” then sue to shut it down…
It’s impossible to know what would be the best solution without seeing the property, but why not replace the evergreen trees? It would take a several years to grow to sufficient height to block the flying balls, but a couple of poles could be erected and removeable netting attached to them above the treeline until the trees are tall enough. The netting could be removed during the off-season and an expensive and unattractive fence would be unnecessary. A little compromise never hurt anyone.
This is happening in Portland at the PIR racetrack. It’s in an industrial type area, and has been there for years. Now people living closer to the track are starting to complain about the noise of racing cars zipping around the track. Guess what, idiots… you moved in next to a race track, what did you expect?
I’m sorry, I feel no sympathy. People do this all the time with animals, moving further and further into wild animal territory as we gobble up all available land, then wonder why there are rattlers in the yard and bears in the swimming pool, or cougars on the trails outside the neighborhood.
We need to jettison a few million people into space.
town should use eminet domain and remove those people from thier home. from there bolldoze and extend the park for “public use”
Pity the poor, soon to be bullied children. Kept inside because of errant baseballs, when a real papa would teach them to bat them back, they will be sheltered from all real or imagined horrors. Every child I knew as a youth would be watching the game, not hiding from it. Sure to be lawyers no doubt, alas, I’m sure the lack of exercise will promote obesity, and they’ll sue the park again. Good Lord, we are wusses here in the states.
I know of a few dirt race tracks (sprint cars, modifieds etc.) that were closed down because developers bought right up to it then people complained about the noise.
I grew up in a great small town in Western massachusetts called Williamsburg. Well, the church bell had been tolling the hours well before my family moved there, but I heard that some folks had moved in somewhere near the church, and instead of accepting the bells as a part of the town’s charachter (and charm) they tried to get them stopped!
I wonder if they asked that the crickets stop while they’re trying to sleep also?
Is this behavior an example of the “Me” generation taken to the extreme ?
It sure seems like an example ofd the weakening of our communities and collective spirit., eh?
—————————————————
PS: I love listening to John C. Dvorak and the Tech TV guys on the This Week in Tech (aka “TWiT”) podcast. It’s the best thing since “Silicon Spin”…
we had this same problem with the dairy farms on the west side of Phoenix a few years back. The farms had once been far out of town but development reached them and then the complaints started, they were forced to sell out and move or go out of business. The largest of the farms moved 38 miles west of their old property, and built the most modern facility in the country. All the latest ideas and equipment to protect the cows from the weather and keep them clean as well as almost eliminate the smell of a dairy farm. It is just 4 miles from our ranch and I have passed it many times, and the lack of smell is amazing.
Well, development has caught up to it again, and the complaints are starting, but this time they are taking the complainers to court. Should be interesting to say the least.
This is the primary reason my father refuses to sell even 1 acre of our original ranch. Even though we no longer raise cattle, he says they aren’t going to impede what we have built for the last 112 years. We have the river on one side, and state trust lands on two other sides, so no one can build a development anywhere near us and force us to sell or move.
Although the lawsuit does seem somewhat frivolous, and I’m sure most people would have sought some kind of compromise with the baseball club either before or after the purchase, once the suit is brought it has to be dealt with within the law, and it looks like the court did the right thing here.
You can’t just throw out a legimiate grievance (within the law), just because it seems like a case of caveat emptor.
Not much to see here, folks. Let’s move a long.
Seriously… is this really that outragenous? They aren’t exactly shutting it down.
A fence seems fairly reasonable to me. However, since the family removed the trees, it seems like they should share in the cost of the fence.
It’s easier to harass liberals than deal with them in court.
No, not a joke: Just a statement of fact.
Send those pricks to tiny countries like Honduras, Make them build their property near a Garifuna neighborhood and see if the lawyers will have the guts to screw the neighbors.
Angel, you aren’t really suggesting James Hill move to Honduras are you?