Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendanttrial

plaintiffdamagestrial

Related Cases

Wells v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Ass’n, 122 Minn. 327, 142 N.W. 706, 46 L.R.A.N.S. 606, Am.Ann.Cas. 1914D,922

Facts

Echo L. Wells attended a baseball game on July 9, 1910, and was struck by a batted ball, resulting in a fractured collarbone. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Association, failed to provide adequate protection for spectators by not maintaining a sufficiently sized screen. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was aware of the risks and had assumed them by choosing a seat outside the protective screen.

Plaintiff alleged that on July 9, 1910, she attended a game, and was struck with such force by a flying ball from the players that her collar bone was fractured; that the only way of protecting spectators from the dangers incident to the game was to place and maintain screens between the players and spectators.

Issue

Did the defendant exercise reasonable care to protect spectators from the dangers of batted balls, and did the plaintiff assume the risk of injury by choosing her seat?

It is a question for the jury what precaution and care should be taken by the management of a baseball exhibition to warn and safeguard the spectators against the dangers incident to the game.

Rule

The management of a baseball exhibition is required to use ordinary care to protect spectators against dangers, but is not an insurer against all risks. Spectators who are aware of the dangers assume the risk when they choose to sit in unprotected areas.

One who maintains grounds to which the public is invited to witness games of baseball is not an insurer against the dangers incident to witnessing the game, but is required to use the care and precaution of the ordinary prudent person to protect the spectators against such dangers.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the defendant had fulfilled its duty to provide adequate protection for spectators. It noted that the plaintiff's choice of seat was critical; if she was indeed seated outside the screen, the defendant had met its obligation. However, the court also recognized that the jury should determine whether the management had adequately warned spectators of the risks associated with sitting in unprotected areas.

We believe that as to all who, with full knowledge of the danger from thrown or batted balls, attend a baseball game the management cannot be held negligent when it provides a choice between a screened in and an open seat; the screen being reasonably sufficient as to extent and substance.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's order and granted a new trial, indicating that the jury should have the opportunity to consider the evidence regarding the plaintiff's position and the adequacy of the defendant's precautions.

Order reversed, and a new trial granted.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Echo L. Wells, prevailed in the sense that the court granted a new trial, allowing her claims to be reconsidered.

If plaintiff prevailed, she was entitled to recover as special damages the reasonable value of the nursing necessitated on account of the injuries, notwithstanding such nursing was rendered by a member of the family without expectation of payment.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Grantham v. Vanderzyl, 802 So.2d 1077

City of Portland v. Boeing Co., 179 F.Supp.2d 1190, 52 ERC 1977

Hoog v. Strauss, 567 S.W.2d 353

Kenton v. Hyatt Hotels Corp., 693 S.W.2d 83

Soap Corp. of America v. Reynolds, 178 F.2d 503