
Quoting
jk
but if they alter the status quo and create a hazard, they cannot stand behind the assumed risk argument since there was no risk to assume for what is created by the alteration.
look at the situation I wrote about with turning the driving range around./ I'll make it a bit more extreme to make it clearer.
they simply turn the direction of the drive around without providing for the balls to even possibly land on the course property. Using your argument the assumed risk of living beside a gold course removes any action available to the home owner.
while they had no duty to put up the trees, once they did they created a condition that the purchasers depended upon. Removing the trees alters the risk factor and since it is already owned, one doesn't get to argue it is all covered under assumed risk.
but I didn't see where the trees were removed. What change I saw was the course moved the tees for the driving range to a point closer to the OP's house. So, since the course altered the source of the risk, there is no assumption of risk since now the home owner was there first.