Taylor v. Churchill Valley Country Club
Decision Date | 24 April 1967 |
Citation | 425 Pa. 266,228 A.2d 768 |
Parties | Richard L. TAYLOR and Pauline Yawaski, Appellants, v. CHURCHILL VALLEY COUNTY CLUB, Original Defendant, Jack Damico, Additional Defendant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Patrick M. O'Donnell, Parker, Evashwick & Brieger, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
Ronald Leslie, William C. Walker, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, and ROBERTS, JJ.
Plaintiffs instituted an action in trespass, seeking to recover damages sustained when Richard L. Taylor, the minor plaintiff herein, was struck and injured by a golf ball.
On July 5, 1959, Richard L. Taylor was engaged as a caddy at Churchill Valley Country Club (hereinafter called 'defendant'). In order to observe golf balls driven (or hit on a second shot) on the 17th hole, it was the customary practice for one caddy in each golf group to go ahead of the golfers and to take a position on a narrow footbridge separating the 15th and 17th holes. While sitting on this footbridge the minor plaintiff was struck by a golf ball hit by Jack Damico, 1 who was one of a foursome, for two of whom plaintiff was caddying. Plaintiff sustained severe personal injuries. At the time of this incident, Taylor was twenty years old.
The case was tried before a Judge and jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the Judge granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment which was entered on that verdict.
In support of their reasons for the grant of a new trial, plaintiffs contend that several errors were committed by the trial Court. However, we need not consider these alleged trial errors because the lower Court correctly directed a verdict in favor of defendant, regardless of the ground or grounds upon which it placed its decision. If a lower Court makes a correct ruling, order, decision, or judgment or decree, but assigns an erroneous reason for its action, an appellate Court will affirm the lower Court's action, order or ruling or decision or judgment or decree, and assign the proper reason therefor. Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110, 117 A.2d 899, 63 A.L.R.2d 490. In that case the Court said (page 115, 117 A.2d page 901):
'* * * The rule here applicable is that a correct decision will be sustained if it can be sustained for any reason whatsoever; in other words we will not reverse in such a case even though the reason given by the Court below to sustain its decision was erroneous: Derry Council, No. 40 v. State Council, 197 Pa. 413, 420, 47 A. 208; Com. v. Wing, 253 Pa. 226, 230, 97 A. 1072; Corgan v. Geo. F. Lee Coal Co., 218 Pa. 386, 392, 67 A. 655; Brew v. Hastings, 206 Pa. 155, 162, 55 A. 922; 2 R.C.L. 189; State Hospital for Criminal Insane v. Consolidated W.S. Co., 267 Pa. 29, 39, 110 A. 281.'
The principles set forth in Wood v. Conneaut Lake Park, Inc., 417 Pa. 58, 209 A.2d 268, are controlling. In the Conneaut Lake Park case, the Court pertinently said (pages 61--62, 209 A.2d page 270):
'It is well settled (1) that defendant is not an insurer: Cooper v. City of Pittsburgh, 390 Pa. 534, 136 A.2d 463, and cases cited therein; Haugh v. Harris Bros. Amusement Co., 315 Pa. 90, 172 A. 145; Schentzel v. Philadelphia National League Club, 173 Pa.Super. 179, 96 A.2d 181, and (2) that plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence, (a) that defendant was negligent, and (b) that its negligence was the proximate cause of the accident: Markle v. Robert Hall Clothes, 411 Pa. 282, 191 A.2d 374; Zilka v. Sanctis Const. Co., 409 Pa. 396, 186 A.2d 897; Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc., 405 Pa. 463, 175 A.2d 864, supra. Moreover, a verdict will not be sustained which is based on conjecture or surmise or guess: Steiner v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 415 Pa. 549, 204 A.2d 254; Robbins v. Kaufman, 415 Pa. 192, 202 A.2d 826.
'As the Court relevantly and correctly said in Schentzel v. Philadelphia National League Club, 173 Pa.Super. page 183, 96 A.2d page 184, supra:
"* * * 'One who maintains a 'place of amusement for which admission is charged, is not an insurer, but must use reasonable care in the construction, maintenance, and management of it, Having regard to the character of the exhibitions given and the customary conduct of patrons invited:' 2 Haugh v. Harris Bros. Amusement Co., 315 Pa. 90, 172 A. 145.' * * *'
'When we apply this test to the facts in the instant case, it means that plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence That defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in the erection or maintenance of its (golf course) * * * commensurate with the risk involved.'
Plaintiffs contend that the defendant negligently failed to provide screening or other protective devices at the point at which the minor plaintiff sustained his injury. Although plaintiffs' brief states that there was expert testimony to prove that defendant was negligent in not providing screening at this particular spot, the testimony of the one witness on whom they rely to prove this--the Club's golf pro--was insufficient. He testified merely that the Club has one screen on the course (on the 18th tee), and several other golf clubs have a screen on a couple of holes. This testimony failed to prove that defendant was negligent in failing to provide screening or other appropriate safeguards at this spot, and for this reason the lower Court correctly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. 3
Judgment affirmed.
I concur in the result because in my opinion plaintiff was an employee of the country club and his claim was covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Fanning v. Apawana Golf Club, 169 Pa.Super. 180, 82 A.2d 584 (1951); Boyd v. Philmont Country Club, 129 Pa.Super. 135, 195 A. 156 (1937).
JONES and EAGEN, JJ., join, on the ground that plaintiffs' sole remedy was Workmen's Compensation.
Richard L. Taylor, 20 years of age, was employed as a caddy at the Churchill Valley Country Club in Allegheny County. His duties seemed innocuous enough. His job was to carry golf clubs, hand the proper one, more or less, to the player for whom he caddied, follow the flight of the balls lofted by the player and then search in bushes, ponds, sand, and other intended or unintended terrain for the released burrowing missile.
As harmless, tranquil, and serene as a golf course may seem to the casual observer, it can, on occasion, become as dangerous as a pocket in jungle battle in Vietnam. On July 5, 1959, while occupying a little bridge in the middle of the golf course, young Richard found himself amid a fusillade of fiercely driven golf balls. One of them hit him in the head with the impact of a bullet, fracturing his skull and rendering him hors de combat for a long period of time.
He brought suit against the Churchill Valley Country Club and was non-suited. He appealed, and this Court affirms the non-suit, stating that the plaintiff did not prove any negligence. Negligence is simply the failure to do what may be reasonably anticipated to be necessary to avoid injuring others. Did the defendant do all that was necessary, in the circumstances, to save the plaintiff from harm?
I am not a golf player, as is the writer of the Majority Opinion who, I am informed, is exceedingly skillful and graceful on the golf links. Thus, I do not know from personal experience what I lose in not having the fun of breathing the refreshing breezes of a country club, enjoying the intoxicating ecstasy of a 'double eagle,' and reveling in the salubrious effects of tramping over beautiful greenswards and by enchanting lakes. But, despite that absence of personal golf experience, I am sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the game, and am helplessly exposed to the enthusiastic garrulity which accompanies all meetings of golfers to such an extent that I must perforce realize that, mixed in with the felicity of the sport, goes considerable hazard apart from the over-indulging temptations of the 19th hole.
The young plaintiff in this case was compelled to take up a position at a bridge over a creek, there to observe the trajectory of golf spheroids being driven by players on the 17th hole. Possessed, like all normal human beings, with only one pair of eyes and thus being able to look only in one direction at a time, he failed to see the golfer, who, standing at a point about 45 yards in front of the 17th teeing ground, struck with such a fancy swing that the hard rubber pellet, traveling with the force of a cannon ball, but with the indecision of a temperamental bee gathering scattered honey, landed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Com., Dept. of Labor and Industry
... ... Campbell, supra; [ 9 ] ... California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553, 77 S.Ct. 1037, 1 ... L.Ed.2d 1034 (1957) ... 720--21 (1968); Taylor v. Churchill V.C.C., 425 Pa. 266, 228 ... A.2d 768 (1967); Sherwood v ... ...
-
MBC Dev. v. Miller
...reason appearing from the record"); Bearoff v. Bearoff Bros., 458 Pa. 494, 327 A.2d 72, 76 (1974) (citing Taylor v. Churchill Valley Country Club, 425 Pa. 266, 228 A.2d 768, 769 (1967); Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110, 117 A.2d 899 (1955)) ("We have often stated that where a court makes a c......
-
Commonwealth v. Pittman
...268 A.2d 765, 766 (1970); Ridley Township v. Pronesti, 431 Pa. 34, 37, 244 A.2d 719, 720-721 (1968); Taylor v. Churchill Valley Country Club, 425 Pa. 266, 268, 228 A.2d 768, 769 (1967); see also 9 Standard Pennsylvania Practice § 169; 5 Am.Jur.2d § ...
-
Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. WCAB (MINTEER)
...regard to the basis on which the court below relied. Bearoff v. Bearoff, 458 Pa. 494, 327 A.2d 72 (1974); Taylor v. Churchill Country Club, 425 Pa. 266, 228 A.2d 768 (1967); Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110, 117 A.2d 899 ...