Blakeley v. White Star Line

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: GRANT
• Citation: 154 Mich. 635,118 N.W. 482
• Decision Date: 30 November 1908
• Parties: BLAKELEY v. WHITE STAR LINE.

154 Mich. 635
118 N.W. 482

BLAKELEY
v.
WHITE STAR LINE.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 30, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Morse Rohnert, Judge.

Action by William Blakeley against the White Star Line. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

The defendant owns and operates a line of boats running from Detroit to various places on the St. Clair river. It owns and controls a pleasure resort known as ‘Tashmoo Park.’ It makes no entrance charge to visitors, but makes its profit by carrying passengers to and from the park. It has furnished various means of amusement, including a baseball ground know as ‘The Diamond,’ a baseball pavilion, and places for other forms of amusement. On June 18, 1905, the retail clerks of Detroit gave a special excursion to the park, and were given by the defendant the right to the possession of The Diamond for the purpose of playing baseball. Plaintiff went to the park with this excursion. When the excursion arrived The Diamond was in possession of a club of players knows as the ‘Mohawk Club.’ They surrendered, evidently under the instruction of the defendant, The Diamond to players of the retail clerks. Some members of the Mohawk Club on leaving The Diamond went outside, between it and the pavilion, where a dance was in progress, and commenced pitching and catching balls. Plaintiff stood near the pavilion, with his back to the players, watching the dance. A ball was thrown towards the pavilion. The catcher failed to catch it, and it struck the plaintiff's ankle with such force that it broke the bones. Plaintiff brought this suit, alleging negligence on the part of the defendant, its agents, and servants ‘to keep and maintain its park and recreation grounds in an orderly manner, * * * and to see that all dangerous games, diversions, and recreations, in which there was an element of danger to patrons and the public, should not be played upon any portion of its park except that set aside for such diversions and amusements, and not in places in said park in close proximity to the paths and spots where passengers and patrons were accustomed to be and to gather, and at places not intended for the exercise and carrying on of such pastimes and diversions.’ The declaration further avers the duty of the defendant to employ and maintain in its park agents and servants for the purpose of seeing to the care, safety, and security of its patrons, and a violation of this duty. At the close of the plaintiff's case the court directed a verdict for the defendant. In so directing he stated that ‘the game of throw and catch would not be a dangerous game where it is conducted in a way that is not wild and erratic, and there is nothing in the testimony to indicate that it was extremely wild and careless, or that the conduct of the little game that was being conducted would be such that people must take notice of those people who are supposed to look out for the comfort and safety of the people in the park. It is just such a game as people visiting a park of this kind might naturally expect to be conducted there, and which they must look out for. They must look out for the dangers incident to such a game.’

Argued before GRANT, C. J., and BLAIR, HOOKER, MOORE, and McALVAY, JJ.

[118 N.W. 483]

Clarence P. Milligan, for appellant.

Gray & Gray, for appellee.

GRANT, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

Counsel for each party cite with approval, as the law applicable to this case, the statement of Justice Cooley, in his work on Torts (page 605): ‘One is under no obligation to keep his premises in a safe condition for trespassers. On the other hand, when he expressly or by implication invites others to come on his premises, whether for business, or any other...