Ostensibly with this in mind, the Farmers Branch Planning and Zoning Commission decided that ordinances designed to preserve the views were worthy of municipal attention. Thus, P&Z has proposed two ordinances. One would prohibit the location of accessory buildings and garages closer than 15 feet from the Brookhaven property line. The other would require that boundary fences be made of black decorative metal and be 75 percent transparent.  With these ordinances enacted, residents-including those adjacent to homes with accessory buildings and fences-would have largely unimpeded views.

While apparently most of the residents favor these ordinances, the world being what it is, objections have been made.  Some, rather than view the proposals as benefiting the residents, see them as promoting Brookhaven, at the expense of their property rights. One, a tea partier perhaps, proclaimed that "this is too much government say over properties."

Another, viewing safety as the major concern, explained that the ordinances would lead to "more invasion of golfers retrieving their golf balls + home damage...We have had at least 16 instances of damage." , including the right to erect a privacy fence. "

And, my favorite, expressing the unspoken sentiment of many, cut to the heart of the matter: "Many of the times while we are in the back yard we have seen golfers lean up against a tree and use the bathroom, that is not a pretty view."

Perhaps if the ordinances were revised to provide that the accessory buildings could include Porta-Johns, all would be in agreement.

Ordinarily, I would avoid commenting about the personal misfortune suffered by a golfer who was impaled by the shaft of a broken club, especially when the man's femoral artery was ruptured. However, reports are that the man is out of the hospital and recuperating, presenting an opportunity to drive home a point of golf etiquette.

Point of Etiquette: Slower players should let faster players play through.

Ancillary point: Violations do not warrant physical assault.

To be fair, the events that occurred at Fort Worth's Resort on Eagle Mountain Lake remain murky. A spokesman for the Sheriff's Department stated that two groups of golfers converged on the 13th tee. The second group (a threesome) asked the first group (a foursome) if they could play through. Presumably, the answer was "no" (or something to that effect), because a fight broke out, a club was broken, and-according to the spokesman- "the shaft end of the golf club became impaled into the groin area of one of the men." Ouch.

Before firing up the judicial machinery, however, please note that the cause of the injury remains under investigation. Apparently, the person calling 911 for assistance stated that the man had fallen onto the club. I wonder if the caller was a member of the foursome or the threesome????

The incident reminds me of a legal case I once read about. The North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in  Everett v. Goodwin, 201 N.C. 734 (1931) describes what happened:

"The plaintiff and his companion [Mr. Elkins], playing what is called a twosome, began their game, and, before they had proceeded very far, the defendant Goodwin, with two companions came upon the course and began playing a threesome behind the plaintiff.

Plaintiff testified as follows: "As we were starting on the fifth hole I drove, and Mr. Elkins then drove, and I got a bad drive on my first ball, which did not go any further than from here to the door back there, and I went out and was preparing to drive again and as I did I looked around and Mr. Goodwin was getting ready to drive his ball off and was swinging, and I hollered, 'Look out, don't drive this way,' and as he drove, the ball went over my head and he hollered and said, 'Get out of the way."

Plaintiff further testified that the defendant and his companions were driving balls in and about him and his companion from the fifth hole up to the fourteenth. The occurrence at the fourteenth hole is narrated by the plaintiff as follows: "They were right there on the tee with us when we finished, and as soon as we would put our ball down and drive off before we had gone more than fifty feet they would have their ball down starting to drive it without any warning whatsoever. In fact, they were so close to us that we did not walk down the middle of the fairway for fear they would hit us. They would drive just immediately after we drove our ball.

As we reached the sixteenth tee and Mr. Elkins made his drive, and I made my drive, as I stepped off, a couple of them, I do not know just which it was that had the ball already teed up ready to swat it, I walked over the edge of the fairway in the rough and I had not gone more than fifteen feet when they had driven their ball and Mr. Goodwin put his ball up to drive and he was drawing back to hit it, and I made the remark, "You are liable to hit me.' I made it loud enough for all to hear. I said, "Better get out of the way, he is liable to hit us,' and I got off the fairway on the edge of the rough, and when I did he drove the ball and the ball hit me on this knee-cap and as it hit me on the knee it knocked me off both feet on the ground and I immediately got up as quick as I could and I said, 'I believe it broke my leg.' Mr. Goodwin walked down there and said he didn't think it was broken and didn't think it was hurt much."

Confronted with these less than favorable facts, the defendant made the rather ingenious argument that he was not hitting into a twosome because the two groups had merged into a fivesome and therefore the rules of engagement were different, as accidents among groups sometimes happen. The jury, however, didn't buy the argument and the Supreme Court refused to second guess the jury. However, the court could not resist one final salvo:

Defendant testified that the parties merged into a five-some from the fifth to the sixteenth hole, and between these said holes the game proceeded "strictly according to honors." This is explained to mean that "the man who makes the lowest score is the man who has the honor of making the first play at the next hole." It does not appear who the "honor" man was at the sixteenth hole, but it is clear that the plaintiff had the "honor" of having his knee cap broken by a ball driven by the defendant, and it is obvious that thereafter all "honors" ceased.

I suspect most everyone by now has seen or heard the reports that Phil Mickelson is in hot pursuit of one or two anonymous internet posters who made scurrilous comments about him and his wife.

The legal proceedings Mickelson has commenced are informative in a couple of respects. On a general level, they show how the internet, with its decentralization and widespread dissemination of information, and the legal protection provided to the internet service providers, creates practical problems for someone claiming to have been defamed. In the dark ages, if a newspaper were to have published the Mickelson claims by the pseudonymous  "Fogroller" and "Longtitude" [sic], Mickelson could bring suit against the paper, end of story. Now, however, the victim must get to the original authors of the comments, and needs to commence legal action simply to identify and locate them.

The second area of interest is why Mickelson so vigorously is pursuing the authors. Perhaps it's no more complicated than he is rightfully angry and wants to create a lifetime of misery for "Fogroller" and "Longtitude". Or perhaps there is the sense that, especially with the Tiger saga, the failure to respond will lead some to believe what was said.

If the goal, once the culprits are identified, is to file a defamation suit, Mickelson places himself on tricky ground. Since a defamation action seeks damages for harm to reputation,  one's entire life-which is the basis for one's reputation-can become an open book during the discovery process. Even if there are no skeletons lurking, I find it hard to believe that Mickelson will want to subject himself to the prying of a lawyer who will be delighted to take on the defense of Fogroller and Longtitude for no compensation. So, my prediction is that, once Mickelson unmasks Fogroller and Longtitude, the world will move on and no defamation suit will be filed.

You know you're in trouble when, five minutes prior to your scheduled presentation at the PGA Merchandise Show, the public address system announces that the fashion show is about to begin. I can't fathom why that would be more of a grab than the scintillating topic of "Avoiding the Litigation Time Bomb," but, for some misguided souls, it apparently was.  Sigh....

On the other hand, crowds very much were in evidence this past Thursday at the Palm Beach County Governmental Center. By 8:30 a.m., the building was overflowing with retirees from Century Village present in a show of force to demonstrate their opposition to a plan to convert a currently unused golf course into a proposed town-center development of retail shops, office space and 689 homes.

At a December zoning hearing, 466 residents submitted comment cards requesting an opportunity to speak, with 433 of the cards indicating opposition to the project. By the time of last week's hearing, county commissioners had received 2,046 post cards voicing opposition, dramatically overshadowing 301 cards presented by the developers in support of the project.

Observers described Thursday's event as raucous:

"The commission chambers is at its 150-person capacity, another 400-plus people are in rooms watching video feeds, while others are listening to audio without video. Members of the crowd are perched on any available seat or table top.

Every so often, the crowd let out a loud 'whoop!' or waved their fists in the air in response to comments by speakers."

In the face of the overwhelming opposition, the commissioners tabled the proposal until October, in order to give the developers an opportunity to find an acceptable compromise with residents.

If that doesn't work, the developers perhaps should consider scheduling a competing fashion show at the date and time of the next public meeting.

The images I have seen of Trump National Golf Club in Palos Verdes, California are spectacular. Especially on a snowy Connecticut Saturday, the oceanfront Pete Dye design looks magnificent.

As with many things Trump-related, however, conflict is not far away. In the case of Palos Verdes, the Trump organization has been engaged in a five year struggle to plant a row of tall evergreen trees along the side of the club's driving range.Neighborhood resistance has focused on concerns about the potential obstruction of ocean views.

The landscaping approval may have been complicated by a history of controversy between the club and the city.  A number of years ago, the Trump organization balked at removing trees that, with approval, had been temporarily placed at the end of the driving range during a televised golf tournament. When the city took steps to remove the trees--which were obstructing neighbor's ocean vies--Mr. Trump called the neighbors' homes "horrendous" while characterizing the 12- to 14-foot trees as "very small bushes."

More recently, Trump subsidiaries instituted litigation against the city over its refusal to permit the construction of luxury homes along the golf course.

Trump and the city are not letting these differences color the new landscaping request. The Trump organization has obtained city council approval, subject to restrictions that impose a height limitation on the trees. The club will be required to keep the trees trimmed at the mandated height. Don't expect to see Donald on a stepladder with pruning shears.

Next month will mark the 40th anniversary of the most famous 6 iron shot ever struck. On Feb. 6, 1972, conditions were dry and windless when Alan Shepard, forced to swing one handed because of a bulky space suit, made imperfect, though legendary, contact on the lunar surface. He actually struck two shots, shanking the first (never happened to me) and then hitting the second one a couple hundred yards in the reduced gravity.

NASA and lunar memorabilia are in the news for legal reasons this week. In November, a company called Heritage Auctions sold for $388,000 the checklist used by astronaut James Lovell during the Apollo 13 flight he commanded. The checklist included the handwritten calculations made by Lovell to guide the damaged ship back to Earth following the onboard explosion that occurred while en route to the moon.

After getting wind of the auction, NASA -- as it has done in other instances -- questioned whether Lovell or NASA had lawful title to the checklist. Pending the results of an investigation, the checklist is being held in Heritage's vault.

This news about the Apollo 13 checklist made me think about Alan Shepard. While the golf balls remained on the moon, the club made the journey back to Earth. Several years later, Shepard donated the club to the United States Golf Association where it is displayed in the Arnold Palmer Center for Golf History at the USGA Museum in Far Hills, NJ. Cognizant of the value of the club, the USGA had it appraised for insurance purposes in 2007.

So, in light of the questions emerging about the Apollo 13 checklist, who has lawful rights to the club?

Unlike other lunar memorabilia, the 6 iron appears not to be entirely government issue. Keeping his plans secret from all but a handful, Shepard had a golf professional take a 6 iron club head and design a fitting that would enable Shepard to position the clubhead on a retractable instrument that was to be used on the lunar expedition. As Shepard recounted, in defense of his plan, "I'm going to pay for the golf balls, I'm going to pay for the clubhead, and there will be no expense to the taxpayer."

In 1996, long before the current issues arose, Shepard told the following story about the club:   "The Smithsonian said they were building a new exhibit in the Air and Space Museum and wanted to use my golf club. I said I was sorry, but I don't have it. I gave it away. There was silence at the other end of the line before they asked where. I said it went to the USGA where it ought to be. They said, 'Don't you know that it flew in a government spacecraft and it automatically becomes the property of the Smithsonian?' '"

At the time, the Smithsonian was placated with receiving a replica of the club. Let's see if things change. In the meantime, memorabilia hunters, I know where you can find two golf balls worth a hefty chunk of change.

Hello Everyone,

Bob Samek has decided to unleash me on the CTGolfer.com readership. I thank him for this opportunity and hope not to disappoint him or you.

By profession, I am an attorney. Over the years, I have served as a litigator of commercial disputes, as general counsel to a financial services company, and as an arbitrator and mediator.

I now practice with Levett Rockwood, P.C., a business law firm that is located in Westport, CT and represents clients throughout the country. My legal work focuses on assisting businesses and senior management in the prevention and resolution of disputes. This includes representing clients in contract matters, negotiating business resolutions when conflict arises, and serving as an advocate in litigation, arbitration and mediation proceedings when the need exists. I also frequently am asked by attorneys to serve as the arbitrator or mediator of disputes between their clients.

Of all the things for which I am grateful to my father, golf tops the list. He introduced me to the game at an early age. While my skill is modest, golf has proven to be good therapy, and golfers good companions. I particularly enjoy the escape of the Yale golf course, where I have played for many years.

I have discovered several ways to blend my love of law and golf. I sometimes have the opportunity to represent clients in golf-related matters. I frequently write about legal issues impacting the golf industry. And I have been invited to speak at the PGA Trade Show in Orlando later this month on ways that golf-related businesses can avoid litigation.

Against this background, I look forward to sharing with you items of interest that involve the intersection of golf and law. I have discovered there is no shortage of interesting, sometimes humorous and occasionally outright quirky legal disputes that have a golf connection.

I hope this will be a collaborative effort, and, with that in mind, I invite and encourage you to share with me your views, to provide topics for discussion, and to offer suggestions as to how to make this an enjoyable and educational exercise.

There is one disclaimer that I must share so that I can remain in the good graces of the legal ethics powers-that-be:  My columns are for informational purposes only. Please do not treat them as legal advice, as individual circumstances require personal attention.

Best,

Rob Harris