Kavafian v. Seattle Baseball Club Ass'n

• Decision Date: 10 January 1919
• Docket Number: 14867.
• Citation: 177 P. 776,105 Wash. 215
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: KAVAFIAN v. SEATTLE BASEBALL CLUB ASS'N.

177 P. 776

105 Wash. 215

KAVAFIAN v. SEATTLE BASEBALL CLUB ASS'N.

No. 14867.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 10, 1919

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater, Judge.

Action by Edward A. Kavafian against the Seattle Baseball Club Association. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. Y. C. Kellogg and Robert L. Blewett, both of Seattle, for appellant.

Reynolds & Harroun, J. Speed Smith, and Will H. Merritt, all of Seattle, for respondent.

MITCHELL J.

Respondent having purchased a ticket to the grand stand, attended a game of baseball conducted by appellant in Seattle. During the game he was hit on the knee by a foul ball and injured. In the complaint he charges appellant with negligence in failing to maintain a screen in front of the seat he occupied. Appellant denied negligence on its part, and affirmatively answered that on the day of the accident it had provided a screened section ample and sufficient for all patrons who cared to sit behind it, thus performing its full duty to the public, that respondent was acquainted with the game and its attendant dangers, and that in taking a seat outside the screened section he was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk of the accident and injury. The affirmative matter of the answer was denied by the respondent. There was a trial by a jury, which returned a verdict for $1,000. The trial court denied motions for a directed verdict, for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Judgment was entered on the verdict, from which an appeal was taken.

Assignments of error are based on the denials of the motions and alleged error in refusing to admit certain evidence offered by appellant. The ball park was new, not yet fully completed. The seating arrangements were in the usual form; the center front of the grand stand being about 58 feet from the home plate. The plans provided for 120 feet of netting in front of the seats in the grand stand--60 feet on each side of the center. Respondent had attended a number of games at the old park in Seattle and four or five at this new park. On the day he was injured he arrived during the second inning of the game and hurriedly took the first convenient seat he reached in the grand stand, where he was injured. There is no dispute that the grand stand was screened for 30 feet on each side of its center. All the evidence of the respondent tended to show he was sitting on a front seat well within 60 feet and more than 30 feet to the right of the center of the grand stand, and that there was no screen in front of him. On the other hand, the evidence of appellant, including the plans of its buildings introduced in evidence, tended to show the grand was screened 60 feet on each side fo its center, but is silent as to just where respondent was sitting. All the seats protected by 60 feet of screen in the center of the grand stand were not taken when respondent arrived. No usher was in attendance.

In keeping with what may be considered common knowledge, the evidence showed there was danger from foul balls at all places back of the foul lines; the danger...