Gordon v. Maryland State Fair, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1938
• Docket Number: 26.
• Parties: GORDON v. MARYLAND STATE FAIR, Inc.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

199 A. 519

174 Md. 466

GORDON v. MARYLAND STATE FAIR, Inc.

No. 26.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 19, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Linwood L. Clark Judge.

Action by Emanuel Gordon against the Maryland State Fair, Inc., for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff was knocked from a chair while observing a horse race. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

William J. McWilliams, of Annapolis (W. Hamilton Whiteford Omar D. Crothers, Jr., and Webster C. Tall, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Wendell D. Allen, of Baltimore, and Ridgely P. Melvin, of Annapolis, for appellee.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN and JOHNSON, JJ.

URNER Judge.

The facts alleged in the declaration in this case, a demurrer to which was sustained by the lower Court, are stated informally in the appellant's brief as follows: 'On or about October 13, 1936, appellant went to the Laurel Race Track in Anne Arundel County, operated for profit by appellee, to attend the horse races. He paid the regular admission fee for entrance, and then paid an additional charge for admission to the club house. Within the club house grounds, appellant was furnished by appellee with a chair on the lawn adjacent to the rail of the track. Immediately before the start of a race, a large crowd of spectators moved up to the rail in front of appellant, so that, in order to see the race, he was obliged to stand upon his chair. At the close of the race, the crowd suddenly surged back against appellant knocked his chair from under him, and caused him to fall to the ground and to receive serious injury.'

The accident was alleged in the declaration to have occurred in consequence of a breach of duty on the part of the defendant, as 'a proprietor of a public exhibition.' to take precautions against injury to the plaintiff 'from a danger known to the Defendant, but which which the Plaintiff exercising ordinary case could not perceive', by 'proper policeing of the grounds of the club house' and by providing 'safe seating accommodations'. The absence of any contributory negligence of the plaintiff was alleged.

There having been a refusal by the plaintiff to amend the declaration after it was held to be demurrable, a judgment for the defendant for costs was entered, and the plaintiff has appealed.

In our opinion the Court below was right in its conclusion that the statement of facts in the declaration was an insufficient basis upon which to charge the defendant with actionable liability. It is the stated theory of the declaration that the accident could have been avoided by adequate seating provisions in the clubhouse enclosure and by police action to prevent occupants of that area from standing in front of the seats, thus obviating any occasion for the plaintiff to stand on his chair to see the race. But the omission of such provisions and precautions was known to the plaintiff, when in accordance with 'common and customary practice', as the declaration alleged, he mounted to a standing position on his chair. His fall occurred because the crowd in front of him, at the close of the race, moved backward before he stepped from the chair to the ground. Such a...