Take v. Orth, No. 31641

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS W. GREENE; WOLFE, P. J., and ANDERSON; RUDDY
Citation395 S.W.2d 270
PartiesVictor TAKE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Evelyn ORTH, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 31641
Decision Date21 September 1965

Page 270

395 S.W.2d 270
Victor TAKE, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Evelyn ORTH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 31641.
St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.
Sept. 21, 1965.

Page 272

Carter, Bull, Baer, Presberg, Lee & Stanard, William K. Stanard II, Richard O. Funsch, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Gregg W. Keegan, John E. Bardgett, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

DOUGLAS W. GREENE, Special Judge.

Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as respondent, filed suit in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, seeking recovery in the amount of $5,000 for damages he allegedly sustained as a result of his wife being hit on the head by a golf ball. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for defendant, hereinafter referred to as appellant. The trial court, on motion, granted a new trial. From the order granting such new trial, appellant has filed her appeal.

The accident which gave rise to this litigation occurred on April 26, 1961. Respondent's evidence was that Mary Jane Take, the wife of respondent, was playing golf at the Westborough Country Club in a twosome. Her partner was a Mrs. Chipps. Mrs. Take and Mrs. Chipps were playing hole number seventeen. It was a clear and bright day. To play the seventeenth hole, you drive across a creek and up a hill south towards the green. Immediately west of the seventeenth hole is the fourteenth hole. The fourteenth hole runs from south to the north. Immediately west of the fourteenth hole is out of bounds.

Mrs. Take teed off on seventeen, and had an excellent drive, which went across the creek and halfway up the hill. Mrs. Chipps wasn't so fortunate, and hit her ball in the creek, a by no means uncommon occurrence for golfers of both sexes who do not make their living at the game, as is the case here. Mrs. Take went with Mrs. Chipps to look for the ball. Mrs. Take walked along the bank on the north side of the creek in a westerly direction to a point west of a large tree, which was located in the rough on the east edge of the fourteenth fairway, where she stopped. They could not find the ball. Another group of ladies were on the seventeenth tee waiting to tee off, so Mrs. Take and Mrs. Chipps moved their golf cart and parked it under the tree, and motioned to the group on the seventeenth too to play through. Mrs. Take was facing north, with her back to the fourteenth tee. People were on the fourteenth green finishing play on that hole. Mrs. Orth, the appellant, and her companion, Mrs. Rinehart, were on the fourteenth tee waiting to shoot. The players on the fourteenty green either waved to Mrs. Orth to shoot, or else were leaving the green. Mrs. Take saw Mrs. Orth and her companion approach the fourteenth tee before she turned to watch the players teeing off on seventeen, but didn't think they would shoot while she was standing within range. Fourteen is a par three hole with a distance of only one hundred eighty-three yards.

Mrs. Orth teed up her ball and drove it toward the fourteenth green. She stated she did not see Mrs. Take before she shot. It was a good drive. After Mrs. Orth shot, she looked up, saw Mrs. Take, and screamed 'fore,' which is the call that golfers use to warn other persons on the course. Mrs. Take didn't hear the warning, as power mowers were operating nearby, and was struck on the back of the head by the ball. Mrs. Orth stated that when she first saw Mrs. Take, that Mrs. Take had her back to Mrs. Orth. Mrs. Orth had been playing golf for nine years, and was an experienced player. She identified a place on a photograph, which was admitted into evidence as plaintiff's exhibit one, as the spot where Mrs. Take was standing when she was struck. The spot was marked by a pin hole and by Mrs. Orth's initials. This spot is some distance to the west of the large tree heretofore mentioned, and near the east edge of the fourteenth fairway. There are no obstructions between the fourteenth tee and the spot where Mrs. Take was standing, and a person standing in that spot could easily be seen from the fourteenth tee. Mr. James Manion, a veteran golfer, testified that if Mrs. Take had waved to golfers on

Page 273

the seventeenth tee to play through, that she would be watching the seventeenth tee and would have her back to the fourteenth tee. Mr. Manion also testified that if there was a person on the course, with their back toward a tee, the persons on the tee should not shoot until the person moved out of the way, or until they were warned, and were aware of the warning. It was only about one hundred to one hundred twenty yards from the fourteenth tee to the place where Mrs. Take was standing when she was hit.

After Mrs. Take was struck, she was taken to the clubhouse. She was bleeding from the head. She was taken to the hospital where a laceration on her head was sutured. Her injuries were diagnosed by her doctor as a laceration and contusion of the scalp with a small underlying skull fracture, and her injuries were attributed to the incident in question. She then went to Dr. Wyatt in Kirkwood for X-rays and treatment. Mrs. Take was in bed for about two weeks and under treatment for six months. She had headaches for several months after the accident, and also dizzy spells. The headaches and dizziness made it impossible for her to do the housework and take care of the children. On many occasions when this occurred, her husband and a hired girl did the housework, and the respondent was deprived of the services and society of his wife during such periods.

Rule 3 in the Rules of Golf of the United States Golf Association on page one, section one, which establishes customs and practices for golfers, states that no player should play, until the players in front are out of range.

Appellant's testimony, in brief, was as follows. Mrs. Orth stated she was standing on the fourteenth tee with Mrs. Rinehart waiting for people to leave the fourteenth green. She stated the players left the fourteenth green and she prepared to drive. She saw no one ahead except some men working down near the creek. She looked to the left and right, at the area where Mrs. Take was standing when she was struck, but saw no one. She hit the ball, and after she hit it, she saw Mrs. Take walking around the tree with her back toward Mrs. Orth. Mrs. Orth yelled 'fore' as did Mrs. Rinehart, but to no avail. Mrs. Orth was familiar with the golf rule previously stated. She said if she had seen Mrs. Take before she hit the ball that she would not have hit the ball.

According to the caddy for Mrs. Orth, Mrs. Take was about ten feet west of the tree in question when she was hit. Mrs. Orth was on the tee for several minutes before she hit the ball.

In rebuttal, Mrs. Take said she had stood in the same spot for a minute or more before she was hit.

At the close of all the evidence, the jury was instructed.

Among said instructions were instructions numbered 6...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Wood v. Postelthwaite, No. 677--I
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • May 8, 1972
    ...Boozer v. Arizona County Club, 102 Ariz. 544, 434 P.2d 630 (1967); Meding v. Robinson, 52 Del. 299, 157 A.2d 254 (1959); Take v. Orth, 395 S.W.2d 270 (Mo.1965); Turel v. Milberg, 10 Misc.2d 141, 169 N.Y.S.2d 955 (1957); Povanda v. Powers, 152 Misc. 75, 272 N.Y.S. 619 (1934); McWilliams v. P......
  • Hodges v. Johnson, No. 8646
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 18, 1967
    ...which are items often employed to gauge the propriety of a verdict given a husband in his derivative action. Take v. Orth, Mo.App., 395 S.W.2d 270, 276(10, 11); Hopkins v. St. Louis Public Service Company, Mo.App., 382 S.W.2d 442, No doubt exists that males have depreciated and females appr......
  • Robben v. Peters, No. 8738
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 1968
    ...The other accrues to the wife for the loss of her husband's services, society Page 757 and companionship. Cf. Take v. Orth, Mo.App., 395 S.W.2d 270, 276(10). 'Novak stands for the proposition that the wife is entitled to damages for a separate and distinct personal loss suffered by her. * *......
  • Joann Thompson v. Lucille Mcneil, 89-LW-0559
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 1, 1989
    ...the existence of such duty to warn must be determined by the facts of each case. (citation omitted)." Id. (citing Take v. Orth (1965), 395 S.W.2d 270). Whether there is a duty to warn under a particular set of circumstances is for the jury to decide. Wood, supra (citing Jenks v. McGranaghan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Wood v. Postelthwaite, No. 677--I
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • May 8, 1972
    ...Boozer v. Arizona County Club, 102 Ariz. 544, 434 P.2d 630 (1967); Meding v. Robinson, 52 Del. 299, 157 A.2d 254 (1959); Take v. Orth, 395 S.W.2d 270 (Mo.1965); Turel v. Milberg, 10 Misc.2d 141, 169 N.Y.S.2d 955 (1957); Povanda v. Powers, 152 Misc. 75, 272 N.Y.S. 619 (1934); McWilliams v. P......
  • Hodges v. Johnson, No. 8646
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 18, 1967
    ...which are items often employed to gauge the propriety of a verdict given a husband in his derivative action. Take v. Orth, Mo.App., 395 S.W.2d 270, 276(10, 11); Hopkins v. St. Louis Public Service Company, Mo.App., 382 S.W.2d 442, No doubt exists that males have depreciated and females appr......
  • Robben v. Peters, No. 8738
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 1968
    ...The other accrues to the wife for the loss of her husband's services, society Page 757 and companionship. Cf. Take v. Orth, Mo.App., 395 S.W.2d 270, 276(10). 'Novak stands for the proposition that the wife is entitled to damages for a separate and distinct personal loss suffered by her. * *......
  • Joann Thompson v. Lucille Mcneil, 89-LW-0559
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 1, 1989
    ...the existence of such duty to warn must be determined by the facts of each case. (citation omitted)." Id. (citing Take v. Orth (1965), 395 S.W.2d 270). Whether there is a duty to warn under a particular set of circumstances is for the jury to decide. Wood, supra (citing Jenks v. McGranaghan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT