Tulsa Entertainment Co. v. Greenlees
| Decision Date | 28 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10362. |
| Citation | 205 P. 179,85 Okla. 113,22 A.L.R. 602,1922 OK 71 |
| Parties | TULSA ENTERTAINMENT CO. v. GREENLEES. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The defendants in an action will not be permitted to pick out a sentence or a part of a sentence in the plaintiff's petition and thereby limit their liability by a construction of the part so selected by them, but the court will construe the petition as a whole. If one paragraph deals with a specific subject or question, such paragraph will be construed as a whole.
The owner of a baseball park to which the public is admitted upon payment of an admission fee, for the purpose of witnessing baseball games or other athletic contests owes a duty to the public to use a high degree of care to keep each part of such park in a safe condition for the use to which the several parts are put, and, if on account of such owner's failure so to do any of the patrons of such park are injured, the owner is liable in damages for such injury.
Where the owner of such baseball park either leases, lets, or permits some other person to use said park for the same purposes for which it was used by such owner, and at the time of letting or permitting the other person to so use such park the seats are in a defective condition, and this is known to the owner, and on account of this defective condition of the seats they collapse and some of the people occupying the seats are thereby injured, such owner is liable in damages to the person or persons so injured. Under this state of facts the fact that the owner of such park donates the use of the same or lets it without any monetary compensation paid to such owner by the person so using it does not thereby make the patrons of such park licensees on the premises and change the liability of the owner.
The instructions given by the court examined, and held, that no error was committed in giving the instructions complained of.
The instructions requested by plaintiff in error and refused by the court examined, and held, that no error was committed in refusing to give the requested instructions.
The evidence examined, and held, that it reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury; therefore the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. Midland Valley Railroad Co. v. Lawhorn (Okl. Sup.) 198 P. 586.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; N.E. McNeill, Judge.
Action by Charles A. Greenlees against the Tulsa Entertainment Company and others. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the Tulsa Entertainment Company appeals. Affirmed.
Chas. E. Bush, A. F. Moss, and L. G. Owen, all of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Horace Speed and Mason & Honnold, all of Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This action was commenced in the district court of Tulsa county by Charles A. Greenlees, as plaintiff, against the Tulsa Entertainment Company, a corporation, Arthur B. Reece, and certain others, as defendants.
On the trial of the case a demurrer to the evidence was sustained as to certain of the defendants. The case was submitted to the jury as to the remaining defendants, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the Tulsa Entertainment Company, a corporation, and Arthur B. Reece, for the sum of $5,000 damages. Thereafter these defendants filed their motion for a new trial and moved for judgment in their favor and against the plaintiff non obstante veredicto. These motions were overruled by the court, and judgment rendered in accord with the verdict. The defendant Tulsa Entertainment Company perfected this appeal and appears here as plaintiff in error.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: During the fall of 1913 two baseball teams, one known as the Chicago White Soxs, the other as the New York Giants, made a tour of the world, playing exhibition baseball games. Arthur B. Reece and his associates negotiated with the managers of these teams to have an exhibition game played at Tulsa. They were not the owners of any baseball park where such game could be conveniently played or where comfortable accommodations could be furnished the public to witness the game. They went to Morris McGrath, one of the defendants, who was president of the Tulsa Entertainment Company, the owner of the grounds and ball park referred to in this action. At the time complained of the legal title to the grounds stood in the name of Charles A. Elliff, who held it as trustee for the Tulsa Entertainment Company. He thereafter conveyed the legal title to the Tulsa Entertainment Company. Mr. Morris McGrath consented that Reece and his associates might have the use of the grounds, and they completed their arrangements to have the exhibition baseball game played at Tulsa.
Some of the officers and parties interested in the Tulsa Street Railway Company were officers of and interested in the Tulsa Entertainment Company. Morris McGrath, the president of the Tulsa Entertainment Company, was also connected with the Tulsa Street Railway Company. The baseball grounds were on one of the car lines of the Tulsa Street Railway Company. During their negotiations Mr. McGrath had asked for 10 per cent. of the gate receipts for the use of the grounds, but Mr. Reece had urged the proposition that the Tulsa Street Railway Company would greatly benefit by the fares collected from the large number of people who would attend the game, and Mr. McGrath had finally consented that Reece and his associates should have the use of the grounds without payment of any sum of money or division of the gate receipts.
Mr. Reece called the attention of Mr. McGrath to the defective condition of the seats in the grand stand and bleachers, but Mr. McGrath replied that the Tulsa Street Railway Company would not spend any money on repairs, but that the repairs would have to be made by Mr. Reece. Some time before the game was played, Mr. Reece bought out his associates in the enterprise, and they were not thereafter interested in it.
On the 28th day of October, 1913, the baseball game was played on the grounds owned by the Tulsa Entertainment Company. Its gates were thrown open to admit any and all of the public who purchased admission tickets. There were certain individuals in charge to direct the holders of tickets to the part of the grand stand and bleachers that such holder or holders should occupy during the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Oil Co., Inc. v. Decell
... ... A. 492; Barrett v. Lake Ontario Beach ... Improvement, 174 N.Y. 310, 61 L. R. A. 829; Tulsa ... Entertainment Co. v. Freenless, 205 P. 179, 22 A. L. R ... 602; Albert v. St., 66 Md ... ...
-
Criterion Theatre Corp. v. Starns
... ... in which plays, moving pictures and certain other forms of ... entertainment are given must be made substantially dark ... during the exhibition. But it is a matter of common ... upon in the original annotation at 22 A.L.R. p. 610, wherein ... our own opinion of Tulsa Entertainment Co. v ... Greenlees, 85 Okl. 113, 205 P. 179, 22 A.L.R. 602, is ... reported. The ... ...
-
Schlender v. Andy Jansen Co.
...and we have found none in which we applied these rules to a situation similar to that here presented. In Tulsa Entertainment Co. v. Greenlees, 85 Okl. 113, 205 P. 179, 22 A.L.R. 602, we applied the rule to a lessor of a baseball park that had defective bleachers that collapsed and injured m......
-
Standard Theaters Corp. v. Hughes
...condition of the premises, and the element of the degree of care owed by the owner was not involved. To refute the holding of the Greenlees case, supra, cites Chickasha Milling Co. v. Plowman, 94 Okl. 170, 221 P. 476, and City of Tulsa v. Harman, 148 Okl. 117, 299 P. 462, and says these two......