Legal Question in Personal Injury in North Carolina

Re: golfball dilema

The question is not entirely clear. The primary question seems to be the liability of the City. A city often has "immunity" from such claims, but for a couple of reasons I initially doubt that this is a problem here. The bigger issue is that of the city's "negligence." The city has quoted a case in which a golfer was struck with a ball. Interestingly, in that case golf course was held liable and the N.C. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling. The only aspect of that case which helps the City is that it establishes a "negligence" standard (as opposed to, e.g. "strict liability"). You must therefore show negligence. In your case, you have a good argument that in view of the number of incidents (twenty-six per year) that they should erect a net or screen. You may want to either continue your claim with them, or consult a lawyer. As for the golfer, first, it sounds like you have a judgment, and therefore you have not only a lien, but a judgment against him (not only his car), to the extent he has any collectible assets. Secondly, I don't see how small claims court can cost $425 without a lawyer.