Hamilton v. Salt Lake City Corporation, 7650
| Citation | 120 Utah 647,237 P.2d 841 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 7650,7650 |
| Parties | HAMILTON, v. SALT LAKE CITY CORP. et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Oscar W. Moyle, Jr., Dan T. Moyle, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Ray R. Christensen, City Atty., Homer Holmgren, Asst. City Atty. and Alonzo P. Kesler, Asst. City Atty. all of Salt Lake City, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order made by the trial court on pre-trial dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice on the ground that as a matter of law defendants were not negligent toward plaintiff and that the latter had assumed the risk of any injury sustained by her. Affirmed, with costs to respondents.
Plaintiff complained that Salt Lake City negligently constructed and maintained its ball park by failing to erect a screen in front of spectators so as to prevent foul balls from hitting them; that as a result thereof plaintiff, who had paid for and chosen a seat 15 feet behind a screen 32 feet high and 150 feet wide, considering, assuming and choosing the same as being a place of safety, was, in the 14th inning of a ball game, struck on the spine by a foul ball knocked over the top of the screen.
There was no allegation or evidence that the screen itself was defective, that plaintiff requested the management to direct her to a place of safety, that she was directed to the seat by anyone but herself, was assured by anyone that it was safe, or that there was any danger known to management, unknown to her, entitling her to notice. Nor is there any allegation or evidence that she was not familiar with baseball and its attendant hazards, was not of normal intelligence and understanding, or that the management knew or should have known of such unfamiliarity or abnormality.
Plaintiff contends that since the pretrial order contained findings that plaintiff 'desiring and intending to view said game from a place of safety, selected a seat about 15 feet behind and in the center of the screened portion of the grandstand which she considered and assumed to be, and which she selected as being in a place of safety where she could not be injured by batted or thrown balls', raised a question of fact which should have been given to the jury. We believe this allegation, if proved in toto, would justify a court in directing a verdict for the defendant under the authorities, and hence justified the court in ruling as a matter of law that defendant had discharged its duty toward plaintiff and that plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Kayak Mfg. Corp., 18910
...Corp., 483 Pa. 75, 394 A.2d 546 (1978); Friedman v. Houston Sports Ass'n, 731 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.App.1987); Hamilton v. Salt Lake City Corp., 120 Utah 647, 237 P.2d 841 (1951); Leek v. Tacoma Baseball Club, 38 Wash.2d 362, 229 P.2d 329 (1951); Annot., 91 A.L.R.3d 24 (1979). Here, again, the em......
-
Startin v. Madsen, 7594
... ... Backman, Backman, & Clark, Salt Lake City, for respondent ... ...
-
Ferguson v. Jongsma
...2d 79, 262 P.2d 285.6 Johnson v. Maynard, 9 Utah 2d 268, 342 P.2d 884; Clay v. Dunford, 121 Utah 177, 239 P.2d 1075; Hamilton v. Salt Lake City, 120 Utah 647, 237 P.2d 841; Stack v. Kearnes, 118 Utah 237, 221 P.2d 594; Esernia v. Overland Moving Co., 115 Utah 519, 205 P.2d 621; Kuchenmeiste......
-
Friedman v. Houston Sports Ass'n
...Club, 173 Pa.Super. 179, 96 A.2d 181 (1953) (no liability if stadium has a screen of customary dimensions); Hamilton v. Salt Lake City Corp., 120 Utah 647, 237 P.2d 841 (1951); Perry v. Seattle School District, 66 Wash.2d 800, 405 P.2d 589 The appellants urge this Court to adopt the lone ca......