Stober v. Embry
| Decision Date | 22 March 1932 |
| Citation | 243 Ky. 117,47 S.W.2d 921 |
| Parties | STOBER v. EMBRY. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch First Division.
Action by Edward F. Stober, by his next friend, against Harry W Embry. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Woodward Hamilton & Hobson, of Louisville, for appellant.
Humphrey Crawford & Middleton, of Louisville, for appellee.
Edward F. Stober, an infant sixteen years of age, was employed as a caddie on the golf course of the Audubon Country Club. He was struck on the head by a golf ball driven by Harry W. Embry and suffered a severe injury. In an action to recover damages for the injury, it was alleged that "the defendant, Harry W. Embry, negligently and carelessly drove a golf ball and struck the plaintiff, thereby seriously and permanently injuring him about his head, nerves and nervous system, his left arm and body, as a result of which the plaintiff has epileptic fits, to his damage in the sum of $30,000." The defense was a denial of the averments of the petition, coupled with affirmative pleas of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. The affirmative allegations of the answer were traversed by a reply. At the conclusion of the testimony for the plaintiff, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. A new trial was requested and refused, and the plaintiff has prosecuted an appeal. The sole question presented is the propriety of the peremptory instruction. Its determination depends upon an interpretation of the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. If the testimony, when so viewed, tended to sustain the cause of action alleged, it was error to take the case from the jury. Terrell v. Southern Ry. Co., 225 Ky. 645, 9 S.W.2d 993; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Rowland, 227 Ky. 841, 14 S.W.2d 174.
The facts are few and may be simply stated. Stober had been working as a caddie at the Audubon Country Club golf links for about five years prior to the time he was hurt. His duties were to carry the clubs of the player he was serving and to watch the ball the player was driving. While the players were driving from the various tees, the caddies were instructed to stand in a particular place which was supposed to be safe. The accident occurred when the players were driving from the third tee toward the fourth green, at which time the plaintiff and his companion caddies were stationed in the rough to the left of the fairway, at a distance of about fifty yards from the third tee. The players were aware of the presence and of the position of the caddies. The caddies do not concur as to their relative positions. But that does not seem to be important. They all agree substantially as to the spot where they were waiting, and how the injury was sustained. The players and the caddies were in plain view of each other, and were observing each other's movements. The fairway was from seventy five to one hundred yards wide, and it is the desire of the players to keep the ball within that space and out of the rough. Embry drove his ball from the third tee, and, in the parlance of the players, made a hook, which is explained as a curve of the ball to the left out of the fairway. The ball was dodged by one of the caddies, but it struck young Stober on the head with dreadful consequences.
It is argued for the appellant that Embry owed a duty to the caddie to exercise ordinary care not to injure him, and, having seen where the boy was stationed, he was under an absolute duty not to hit him with the driven ball. The rule advanced would make the players insurers of the safety of the caddies, and no such doctrine applies in a negligence case. It is the duty of the driver of a golf ball to exercise ordinary care for the safety of persons reasonably within the range of danger. But ordinary care in such situations does not require the impossible. A player is not able to control either the direction or the destination of a golf ball driven by him. Obviously he must give notice to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Postelthwaite
... ... Chapman, ... Page 889 ... 158 Cal.App.2d 78, 322 P.2d 241 (1958); Walsh v. Machlin, 128 Conn. 412, 23 A.2d 156, 138 A.L.R. 538 (1941); Stober v. Embry, 243 Ky. 117, 47 S.W.2d 921 (1932); Mazzuchelli v. Nissenbaum, 355 Mass. 788, 244 N.E.2d 729 (1969); Page v. Unterreiner, 106 S.W.2d 528 ... ...
-
McWilliams v. Parham, 519
... ... Boynton v. Ryan, 3 Cir., 257 F.2d 70; Miller v. Rollings, Fla., 56 So.2d 137; Stober v. Embry, 243 Ky. 117, 47 S.E.2d 921; Page v. Unterreiner, Mo.App., 106 S.W.2d 528; Toohey v. Webster, 97 N.J.L. 545, 117 A. 838, 23 A.L.R. 440; ... ...
-
Robinson v. Meding
... ... Ryan, 3 Cir., 257 F.2d 70. Clearly such notice must be given to such persons when they are not aware of his intended play. Stober v. Embry, 243 Ky. 117, 47 S.W.2d 921. In the case of a warning given at or immediately after the ball was struck, it has been held that it would be ... ...
-
Poole v. Lutz & Schmidt, Inc.
... ... 970; Lexington & E. Railway Company v. White, 182 Ky. 267, 206 S.W. 467; Bridgford v. Stewart Dry Goods Company, 191 Ky. 557, 231 S.W. 22; Stober v. Embry, 243 Ky. 117, 47 S.W. (2d) 921; Wallis v. Illinois Central Railway Company, 247 Ky. 70, 56 S.W. (2d) 715; Adams' Adm'r v. Callis & Hughes, ... ...