Walsh v. Machlin
| Decision Date | 05 December 1941 |
| Citation | 23 A.2d 156,128 Conn. 412 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALSH v. MACHLIN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Baldwin, Judge.
Action by James A. Walsh against Frederick Machlin for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant brought to the superior court and tried to the court. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
Albert H. Barclay, of New Haven (Albert H. Barclay, Jr., and John W. Barclay, both of New Haven, on the brief), for appellant.
Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, for appellee.
On the morning of July 28, 1935, the plaintiff and defendant, experienced golfers familiar with the rules of the game, were partners playing in a foursome on the Race Brook Country Club course in Orange. After they had played in approaching the third green, the defendant's ball came to rest in the rough a foot or two from the right edge of the fairway and approximately one hundred feet from the green, and the plaintiff's ball at a point also in the rough but farther from the fairway, about thirty-five to forty feet from the defendant's ball and somewhat nearer to the green. As the balls lay, a line drawn through them would intersect a line drawn from the defendant's ball to the green at approximately a ninety degree angle. The rough consisted of rather thick grass and weeds some eight to ten inches deep and was wet from a fairly heavy dew.
Standing by the defendant's ball, the plaintiff and defendant discussed the club the defendant should use and the defendant selected his mashie niblick. The plaintiff, seeing the defendant about to prepare to make his shot, said "Now put it on the green," and walked away at almost right angles to the direct and intended line of flight from the ball to the green. Without calling, "Fore," the defendant swung at his ball, shanked it so that it was deflected at almost a ninety degree angle to the right and hit the plaintiff in the eye as he turned to look back over his left shoulder just as he had reached his ball, causing him serious injury. Shanking means swinging under the ball or lower than intended so that the ball is hit with the shank or shaft instead of with the face of the club, and the result in this instance was a slice to the right as above stated. In making his stroke the defendant kept his eye on the ball, paid attention to the shot and attempted to make it correctly, and the shanking and consequent slicing of the ball was caused either by the wet and heavy condition of the grass and weeds or by a miscalculation as to the height of the ball on the defendant's part, and not by any negligence in his manner of striking it. A slice at a ninety degree angle is a very unusual shot which the defendant could not reasonably have anticipated under the circumstances.
At the time the defendant made his shot he knew that the plaintiff had walked away as above stated, and that his general position was about thirty-five or forty feet distant on a line at right angles to the intended and anticipated line of flight of the defendant's ball. When the defendant hit his ball there was nobody between it and the green, that is, within the intended line of flight or within the area within which danger from the ball was reasonably to be anticipated, and the plaintiff knew that the shot was then being played...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Postelthwaite
...and, therefore, the warning would be superfluous. Oakes v. Chapman, 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......
-
Cahill v. Carella
...not negligent without raising the issue of immunity for injuries negligently inflicted by one player upon another. See Walsh v. Machlin, 128 Conn. 412, 23 A.2d 156 (1941). In Babych v. McRae, 41 Conn.Sup. 280, 567 A.2d 1269 (1989), a Superior Court decision, a motion to strike a negligence ......
-
Jaworski v. Kiernan
...is flexible enough to fix a person's standard of care for any set of circumstances. 5 In addition, the plaintiff cites Walsh v. Machlin, 128 Conn. 412, 23 A.2d 156 (1941), wherein the plaintiff was injured when struck by a golf ball, for the proposition that we have already determined that ......
-
Boynton v. Ryan
...to give the defendant a clear fairway upon which to drive. There was no duty to warn in this instance. See Walsh v. Machlin, 1941, 128 Conn. 412, 23 A.2d 156, 138 A.L.R. 538 (golfer); Stober v. Embry, 1932, 243 Ky. 117, 47 S.W.2d 921 (caddy); Johnston v. Blanchard, 1st Dept.1949, 276 App.Di......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1997 Annual Survey
...to other factual circumstances, such as golf, to another day. However, in distinguishing Jauvrski from the case of Walsh v. Machlin, 128 Conn. 412, 23 A.2d 156 (1941) (plaintiff was injured by golf ball and court imposed a negligence standard), the court enumerated several factors which wil......