In Rehoboth, Mass., Joyce Amaral collected 1,800 golf balls from her property abutting Middlebrook Country Club, then lugged them into court when she sued the club. Ms. Amaral’s house was hit so regularly, her landscapers wore hard hats. Balls set off the burglar alarm and dented her car.

Image Pete Cuppels, Middlebrook Country Club owner, said the ruling could be like the Roe v. Wade of golf law. Credit... Erik Jacobs for The New York Times

Although the club existed decades before the house was built, a court ruled that the balls — and the golfers looking for them — were a trespass. The parties settled this month, with the club agreeing to shorten the No. 9 hole, which should keep the Amaral property out of the line of fire.

But Pete Cuppels, the club’s owner, said the settlement would probably put his low-cost nine-hole course out of business.

“I’ve already had to take $50,000 from my retirement account to pay for legal fees, both the plaintiff’s and mine,” Mr. Cuppels, 68, said. “We modified the hole before the settlement, and we’ve already seen a big drop in return business. I feel worse that my name is on a ruling that could be like the Roe v. Wade of golf law. If the precedent is that golf course owners are responsible for every crooked shot hit by a novice or a good golfer, we’re all in trouble.”

Most courts, however, instead rule that homeowners assume risk when they move adjacent to a golf course, said Dalton B. Floyd Jr., a South Carolina lawyer whose practice regularly involves golf-related litigation and who has been a consultant to the Professional Golfers Association of America.

“The golf course owners have a duty to exercise ordinary concern,” Mr. Floyd said. “And in some instances, there may be a design problem that can be corrected by moving tees, greens, trees or using nets. There are always exceptions, and sometimes it can get very serious. But it is also part of golf that the golfer doesn’t always know where that ball will end up.”