Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 13,259 |
| Citation | 16 La.App. 95,133 So. 408 |
| Parties | LORINO v. NEW ORLEANS BASEBALL & AMUSEMENT CO., INC. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division "E". Hon. Wm. H. Byrnes, Jr., Judge.
Action by Peter Lorino against New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co Inc.
There was judgment for defendant, dismissing suit, and plaintiff appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Noah Lord, N. Morgan Woods II, of New Orleans, attorneys for plaintiff, appellant.
Wm. H Talbot, of New Orleans, attorney for defendant, appellee.
Defendant the owner and operator of a baseball park in New Orleans, is sought by plaintiff to be held liable for injuries sustained as a result of being struck on the head by a batted ball during the practice immediately preceding a game conducted by defendant, and to attend and view which game plaintiff had paid admission.
In the baseball park are seats of varying degrees of safety and comfort. Plaintiff, in order to save the additional charge made for seats in the grandstand, in which stand there are many seats protected against dangers from foul balls or from balls improperly thrown, had chosen to go into the "bleachers," which is in the uncovered section and in which cheaper seats are afforded, in front of which seats there is practically no protection against the dangers to which we have already referred.
When plaintiff entered the "bleachers," the preliminary practice was already in progress, and, while he was looking around in an effort to determine just what seat would suit him best, a foul ball was hit which struck him on the side of the head and fractured two of the bones of his jaw.
It is contended on behalf of plaintiff that, since there was in front of the section in which he was about to secure a seat a small wire screen about five feet in height, he was justified in assuming that the screen was all that was required to afford him complete protection, and that, if there was danger of balls being knocked over that screen, defendant should have erected a higher one.
Defendant maintains, on the other hand, that, since there were available other seats in which plaintiff would have been fully protected from such dangers, he, by voluntarily choosing a seat in an unprotected section, assumed such risks as might be attended upon such a selection. Defendant also contends that plaintiff was guilty of negligence, in that he did not keep his eyes on the players, and thus was not aware of the approach of the ball, which he could easily have dodged, had he been on the lookout.
It is well known, as the evidence demonstrates, that it is not possible, at base-ball games, for the ball to be kept at all times within the confines of the playing field. Errors must inevitably occur and foul balls must frequently be knocked, and on any such occasion there is danger that the ball may enter that portion of the park occupied by the spectators. Those who fear such dangers may, as we have said, secure protection in those seats in front of which screens are erected, and which screens extend from the ground to the roof and afford complete safety. Those who do not elect to take advantage of such protection assume the risks of such obvious dangers.
That plaintiff was familiar with the possibilities of such an occurrence is shown by his testimony to the effect that he had attended other baseball games and had been in this particular park on at least two prior occasions.
The nearest point of the section known as the "bleachers" is shown to be some 158 feet from the "home plate," which is the spot at which the batter stands, and at this distance the danger is not so excessive as to require anything more than a low screen to protect spectators against the terrific force of fast-moving low balls direct from the bat sometimes known as "line drives." Had the injury here resulted from such a blow and had the ball entered through a defective screen, the legal situation would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Kansas City Baseball Club
... ... Hudson, Appellant, v. Kansas City Baseball Club, Inc" No. 38001 Supreme Court of Missouri July 28, 1942 ... \xC2" ... 266, 204 S.W. 505; Berberet v. Electric Park Amusement ... Co., 319 Mo. 275, 3 S.W.2d 1025; Murrell v ... Alamo City ... Baseball Club, 150 S.W.2d 368; Lorino v. New Orleans ... Baseball & Amusement Co., Inc., 16 La ... ...
-
Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc.
...Ohio St. 175, 147 N.E. 86 (1925); Anderson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, 231 S.W.2d 170 (Mo., 1950); Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., 16 La.App. 95, 133 So. 408 (1931). The limited duty rule was apparently first recognized almost ninety years ago in Edling v. Kansas City Base......
-
Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc.
...4th Cir.1964) (plaintiff assumed risk of injury by standing on sidelines of a football game); Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., 16 La.App. 95, 133 So. 408 (Orl.Cir.1931) (baseball spectator who elected to sit in area where balls are known to fly into stands assumed risk of Mos......
-
Crespin v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC
...225 N.E.2d at 84; Hunt v. Thomasville Baseball Co., 80 Ga. App. 572, 56 S.E.2d 828, 829 (1949); Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., 16 La.App. 95, 133 So. 408, 409 (1931); Crane v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co., 168 Mo.App. 301, 153 S.W. 1076, 1077 (1913). As the court s......