Facts
- John and Miriam Fenton owned a residence in Monson, Massachusetts, adjoining a nine-hole golf course operated by Quaboag Country Club, Inc.
- After purchasing the property in 1952, the Fentons experienced recurrent incursions from balls hit from the ninth hole onto their land.
- A master found that an average of about 250 golf balls per year landed on the Fentons’ property.
- Golf balls broke sixteen panes of glass in the home over time; the plaintiffs were reimbursed for some replacements but not all.
- Golfers sometimes entered the property to retrieve balls; at least one confrontation occurred involving a golfer threatening the Fentons’ dog and raising a club at John Fenton.
- The club constructed a partial fence, but balls continued to enter the property, causing damage and creating ongoing fear of injury and loss of quiet enjoyment.
Issues
- Whether recurring golf-ball invasions onto the plaintiffs’ land constituted a continuing trespass and nuisance justifying injunctive relief.
- What damages were recoverable for (a) physical damage to the property, (b) discomfort and annoyance from the interference, and (c) alleged diminution in the property’s market value.
Decision
- The court affirmed injunctive relief restricting operation of the ninth hole to prevent golf balls from entering the plaintiffs’ property.
- The court affirmed damages for broken window panes and for discomfort and annoyance caused by the continuing nuisance.
- The court reversed damages awarded for permanent diminution in fair market value because the interference was abatable by injunction; permanent-value damages were not the proper measure.
Legal Principles
- Recurrent physical invasions of another’s land (such as repeated golf balls) may constitute both trespass and nuisance when they materially interfere with use and enjoyment.
- Injunctive relief is appropriate where invasions are continuing and money damages alone do not adequately protect the landowner’s right to security and quiet enjoyment.
- For an abatable nuisance, damages should not be measured by permanent diminution in market value; the measure instead focuses on temporary harm (such as loss of use or rental value during the interference) plus specific compensation for proven property damage and personal discomfort.
- Partial remedial efforts by the defendant do not bar an injunction or eliminate liability when the interference continues.
Conclusion
The court held that repeated golf-ball intrusions created a continuing trespass and nuisance warranting an injunction and damages for repair costs and substantial interference with enjoyment, but it disallowed permanent market-value diminution damages because the condition could be ended through abatement.