Schlenger v. Weinberg

• Decision Date: 19 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 29.,29.
• Citation: 150 A. 434
• Parties: SCHLENGER v. WEINBERG et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

150 A. 434

SCHLENGER

v. WEINBERG et al.

No. 29.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 19, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court.

Mere ownership of a golf course does not impute liability for an injury suffered by another from a golf ball driven by a player on the course.

Syllabus by the Court.

The law does not require a warning against an unusual and chance incident to accompany an invitation to do that, not inherently dangerous, which is a widely accepted phase of contemporaneous life and which the ordinary person thoroughly understands the significance of.

Syllabus by the Court.

An invitee on a golf course, accidentally hit and injured by a golf ball driven by an unidentified player, may not, under the circumstances of the case, charge liability against the invitor simply because the latter did not warn the invitee of the danger and did not warn the player not to drive the ball.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Morris Schlenger against Jacob Weinberg and others. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Elizabeth Blume, of Newark, for respondents Weinberg and Blum.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Edward A. Markley and Howard P. McIntyre, both of Jersey City, on the brief), for respondent Florham Golf Links.

CASE, J.

While on the course owned by defendant Florham Golf Links, Inc., the plaintiff was struck and injured by a golf ball said to have been driven by an unnamed "member" of the "club." He was in the presence of defendant Jacob Weinberg. Defendant Samuel Blume, impleaded as Joseph Blum, was the president of the corporate owner. It does not clearly appear what precise relationship the "club" bore to the corporate defendant, nor what constituted "membership." The plaintiff's contention is that he was an invitee on the premises and that he was, at the instance of the defendants, taken, without warning, to a place of danger with resulting injury. At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial court nonsuited as to all three defendants. Plaintiff appeals therefrom.

The evidence does not connect the corporate defendant with the transaction. Such testimony as bore thereon was admitted only as against one or both of the individual defendants. Mere ownership of a golf course does not impute liability for an injury suffered by another from a golf ball driven by a player. The nonsuit as to Florham Golf Links, Inc., was obviously correct.

Plaintiff's brother-in-law, Samuel Geldizer. testified that on an earlier occasion Weinberg had asked him to "come out to see their golf links, and I said I would come some Sunday if I get some friends," and that Weinberg added, "Well, you can bring your brother along with you, Mr. Schlenger"; that following this the witness, with his wife, Schlenger, and Schlenger's wife, went to the grounds and asked for Weinberg, who presently appeared, and who, at the suggestion of defendant Blume, undertook to "show us the grounds," Blume remarking that "if you look at the place you will surely sign up as a member today"; and that having gotten on the links. Schlenger was hit by a driven golf ball. This testimony is in parts corroborated by the plaintiff, Mrs. Geldizer, and Mrs. Schlenger.

Plaintiff relies upon Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N. J. Law, 308, 27 A. 478, 479, as the leading case on the character of liability that he charges against the defendants in the instant case. Assuming, but not holding, that the plaintiff was an invitee rather than a licensee and that the duty of the individual defendants was the same as though they had been owners, the applicable rule as stated in the cited case is that "an owner of lands who, by invitation, express or implied, induces persons to come upon his premises, is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for such purposes, or at least to abstain from any act that will make the entry upon or use of the premises dangerous." The defendants are not charged with the causative act of injury. Who the driver of the ball was we are not told; but he was not either of the defendants, nor, so far as appears, was he the servant or agent of either of them. The plaintiff's right of action against the person who inflicted the injury is not involved. The contention in plaintiff's brief is: "Plaintiff had no knowledge of the dangerous situation in which defendants placed him. It was negligence to so place him or to fail to warn him or to warn the golf player who injured him."

The plaintiff was there to "see the golf links." There was no...