Ford v. Brandan
| Decision Date | 04 December 1962 |
| Citation | 51 Tenn.App. 338,367 S.W.2d 481 |
| Parties | Tommy FORD, by Next Friend, etc. v. Henry C. BRANDAN, Jr., et al. Marion E. FORD v. Henry C. BRANDAN, Jr., et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Francis W. Headman, Knoxville, for plaintiffs in error.
Poore, Cox, Baker & McAuley, Knoxville, for defendants in error.
Tommy Ford, suing by next friend, brought this action to recover for personal injuries sustained on defendants' trampoline. In a companion suit the parents sought a recovery for medical expenses and loss of services. From judgments dismissing both suits upon directed verdicts for defendants both plaintiffs have appealed.
The defendants Brandan and Quinn engaged in the business of operating amusement devices known as trampolines which they invited the public to use for a charge of 50cents per hour for each trampoline.
On August 15, 1960, at about 10 P.M., Tommy Ford, the minor plaintiff, then 16 years of age, in company with Jimmy Hall, Mark Keith and Bob Carter who were about the same age visited defendants' place of business. Plaintiff and Jimmy Hall bought time on one of the 12 trampolines in operation. Their two companions remained on the sidelines. After alternately jumping for about 15 minutes, Jimmy Hall in an act of horseplay pushed plaintiff from a standing position at the side of the trampoline causing him to fall on the mat and rebound into the air 4 or 5 feet and then to fall on the exposed springs of the mat resulting in a broken arm.
Defendants' trampolines each consisted of a rectangular pit approximately 6' X 8', around which there was securely fastened at ground level a frame covered with foam rubber. Inside the frame and over the pit a mat was suspended by means of coil springs attached at one end to the frame and at the other end to the mat. Each spring was approximately one inch in diameter and 8 inches long. Between the springs there was an open and uncovered space of 4 or 5 inches.
There is no charge in the declarations of negligent or improper construction or maintenance of the trampolines. The charges of negligence are that defendants failed to give plaintiff instructions about how to use the trampoline in safety, failed to warn him of the danger or to properly supervise his use of the trampoline and, to quote from the declarations, 'failed to prevent boys who were standing adjacent to the one being used by plaintiff (Tommy Ford) from horseplay'.
Defendants' motion for directed verdicts made at the close of all the evidence was based upon the grounds that (1) there was no proof of negligence on the part of defendants (2) assumption of risk and (3) that plaintiff was injured as the result of horseplay. The Court directed verdicts on the last of these grounds. On analogous facts the first two questions were considered by this court in Myers v. Sky Jump, Inc., Blount Law, decided August 8, 1962, where a directed verdict for the operator of a trampoline was held proper. There is no occasion to again go over the same ground covered in the opinion in that case. Horseplay was not involved in that case.
The facts relating to horseplay are undisputed, the primary questions being whether defendants owed plaintiff the duty of preventing unruly conduct on the part of other participants in the sport and failed to discharge that duty and whether plaintiff himself having participated in the horseplay and continued to jump was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Generally, the proprietor or operator of a public place of amusement is liable to a patron for injuries sustained as the result of horseplay, boisterous conduct or other act of playfulness on the part of other patrons provided he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gold v. Heath
...Ozark Theatres Corp., 156 Kan. 137, 131 P.2d 671; Ruehling v. American Legion Pavilion, Inc., 255 Minn. 391, 96 N.W.2d 702; Ford v. Brandan, Tenn.App., 367 S.W.2d 481; of all of which it might be said that the owners had greater reason for seeing to their patron's care than did defendants h......
-
Kungle v. Austin, 49970
...had a dozen supervisors surrounding the trampoline and watching plaintiff.' The fourth case cited by respondents is Ford v. Brandan, Tenn.App., 367 S.W.2d 481. In that case a 16-year-old boy was injured. A companion had pushed the plaintiff, causing him to fall. Plaintiff's suit was based o......
-
Dellinger v. Pierce, 02A01-9203-CV-00091
...acts and resulting injuries in the absence of a showing of timely notice of the situation creating the danger. Ford v. Brandan (1962 E.S.), 51 Tenn.App. 338, 367 S.W.2d 481. 496 S.W.2d at 917 (emphasis added). Thus, imposing liability requires that the defendant "know or have reason to know......
-
Corbitt v. Ringley-Crockett, Inc.
...acts and resulting injuries in the absence of a showing of timely notice of the situation creating the danger. Ford v. Brandan (1962 E.S.), 51 Tenn.App. 338, 367 S.W.2d 481. In 29 A.L.R.2d commencing at page 911 under the heading 'Liability of owner or operator of theater or other amusement......