Brummerhoff v. St. Louis Nat. Baseball Club
| Decision Date | 08 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 25684.,25684. |
| Citation | 149 S.W.2d 382 |
| Parties | BRUMMERHOFF v. ST. LOUIS NAT. BASEBALL CLUB. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Williams, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Action by Henry Brummerhoff against the St. Louis National Baseball Club, a corporation, for injuries sustained when plaintiff was struck by a baseball at a baseball park where defendant's team and another team were practicing for a baseball game. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Carter & Small, Davis Biggs, Jr., and James E. Garstang, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Fordyce, White, Mayne, Williams & Hartman, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is a suit for damages for personal injuries sustained by Henry Brummerhoff, plaintiff, on August 20, 1938, as a result of being struck by a baseball fouled into the grandstand at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis, Missouri, while plaintiff was attending a baseball game between the baseball team of defendant and the baseball team of the Cincinnati Baseball Club Company. On that day plaintiff, accompanied by his wife, arrived at the ball park about 1:15 P. M. It was ladies' day, and all women were admitted to a certain section of the ball park, that is, the upper deck of the grandstand, upon payment of a small fee of 25¢. Plainiff purchased a ticket for $1.10, which admitted him to a reserved seat, but he had the privilege of occupying seats in other parts of the park. He went to the upper deck to find a seat behind the screened area, but could not find any, and finally took a seat beside his wife, between the catcher and first base, three or four rows up from the lower tier. The game had not started. The Cincinnati team was conducting batting practice. A man in the pitcher's box was throwing balls to a batter at home plate; three or four other players were practicing along the first-base line; and on the third-base line players were batting balls out into the field. Plaintiff estimated that at that time there were about five or six balls in play. After plaintiff had been seated some three or four minutes, he was struck in the right eye by one of the balls. He did not know where it came from. At the time he was wearing glasses, which were broken, and he sustained an injury to his right eye.
Plaintiff testified that he had been going to baseball games about once a month for three or four years prior to the day on which he was injured. He stated that he knew the game had not started, and from his experience in having attended ball games over a period of years he knew that baseballs might escape from the playing field. On previous occasions he had seen the practice period before the game started, and had seen balls being batted when thrown by the pitcher, and on these previous occasions, as on this occasion, he had seen a number of balls being knocked out into the field by batters.
From the defendant's evidence it appears that it is usual and customary for baseball teams to engage in about twenty minutes' batting practice prior to the starting of the game. The majority of the club, with the exception of the pitchers who are expected to work that day, participate. Pitchers station themselves in the outfield, and ordinarily one of the coaches, using what is called a fungo bat, throws a ball into the air and hits it to one of the pitchers, usually placing it at a distance of fifty feet to the right or left of the pitchers, so that the latter are compelled to run to catch the ball. The purpose of this practice is to limber up the pitchers. While this is going on, it is customary to have a group of infielders on their respective positions, and extra men, infielders or outfielders, warm up by playing catch between the foul line and the grandstand. Generally one man hits to the pitchers in the outfield, and at the same time a man at the plate hits pitched balls to the infielders and outfielders. In addition to the foregoing batting practice, it is customary prior to the game to have "pepper practice," by which it meant one or two men bat grounders to infielders, so as to limber...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Kansas City Baseball Club
......275, 3 S.W.2d 1025; Murrell v. Smith, 152 Mo.App. 95, 133 S.W. 76; Purdy v. Loew's St. Louis Realty & Amusement Corp., 220. Mo.App. 854, 294 S.W. 751; Murphy v. Electric Park. Amusement ...Baseball Club, . 232 Mo.App. 897, 104 S.W. 746; retrial, 119 S.W.2d 1000;. Brummerhoff v. St. Louis Natl. Baseball Club, 149. S.W.2d 382; Tinkle v. St. Louis & S. F. Railroad. Co., ... baseball was properly enforced in Brummerhoff v. St. Louis Nat. Baseball Club (Mo. App.), 149 S.W.2d 382,. where [349 Mo. 1226] the plaintiff looked for a ......
-
Iervolino v. Pittsburgh Athletic Co.
...Exhibition Co., 215 N.C. 64, 1 S.E.2d 131 (1939); Brummerhoff v. St. Louis National Baseball Club, Court of Appeals of Missouri, 149 S.W.2d 382 (1941); Keys v. Alamo City Baseball Co., Court of Appeals of Texas, 150 S.W.2d 368 (1941); Hunt v. Thomasville Baseball Co., 80 Ga.App. 572, 56 S.E......
-
Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp.
...Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., Inc., 16 La.App. 95, 133 So. 408 (1931); Brummerhoff v. St. Louis National Baseball Club, 149 S.W.2d 382 (Mo.App.1941); Kozera v. Town of Hamburg, 40 A.D.2d 934, 337 N.Y.S.2d 761 (1972); Baker v. Topping, 15 A.D.2d 193, 222 N.Y.S.2d 658 (1961)......
-
Emhardt v. Perry Stadium, Inc., 16942.
...874;Keys v. Alamo City Baseball Co., 1941, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S. W.2d 368;Brummerhoff v. St. Louis Nat. Baseball Club, 1941, Mo.App., 149 S.W.2d 382;Cates v. Cincinnati Exhibition Co., 1939, 215 N.C. 64, 1 S.E.2d 131;Ivory v. Cincinnati Baseball Club Co., 1939, 62 Ohio App. 514, 24 N.E.2d 83......