Watford v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., No. 11638.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
• Writing for the Court: CLARK, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit
• Citation: 211 F.2d 31
• Parties: WATFORD by JOHNSTON et al. v. EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO. et al.
• Docket Number: No. 11638.
• Decision Date: 08 January 1954

211 F.2d 31 (1954)

WATFORD by JOHNSTON et al.
v.
EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO. et al.

No. 11638.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 12, 1953.

Decided January 8, 1954.

211 F.2d 32

Mr. Louis Ginberg, Washington, D. C., Mr. Ellis Klein, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Paul R. Connolly, Washington, D. C., Mr. John P. Arness, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellees.

Before CLARK, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

Appellees, private commercial companies, joined in a promotional advertising venture involving sponsorship of the 1947 Washington Soap Box Derby. Boys, eleven to fifteen years old, who had built miniature motorless racers, participated in this race. The Derby and its sponsors were extensively advertised, spectators were invited to watch the competition free of charge and prizes were awarded by the sponsors to the winners. The Derby in question was conducted on public property pursuant to arrangements with municipal authorities which included police supervision for the safety of the invited spectators.

It was actively supervised by Howard Bailey, assistant to the publisher of the Evening Star newspaper. He arranged for the race itself, to which local Chevrolet dealers and the Star invited the public, and also coordinated the activities of the American Legion, the police and other municipal authorities who had agreed to assist in various phases of the event. With the police, he participated in the selection of Pennsylvania Avenue as the site of the race and in the decision to place rope barricades on public property three feet behind both curbs for protection of spectators. Who was actually in charge of spectator safety at the race itself is in dispute. On the one hand, there is testimony that the police considered the handling of the crowd to be its responsibility. On the other hand, the evidence also shows that Bailey and an assistant used a public address system installed by them to urge spectators to get behind the rope barricades and that they threatened to hold up the races until their orders were obeyed. It appears that, despite these warnings, the police permitted spectators to stand in front of the rope barricades and apparently races were run when

211 F.2d 33

spectators were in front of the rope barricades

Appellants are Herman Watford, who was a six year old spectator, and his mother who brought this personal injury suit against appellees on his behalf and on her own. They alleged that the safety measures employed by appellees were inadequate to discharge the duty which appellees owed to the boy as an invited spectator and that, as a result, he was struck and seriously injured by a soap box racer when its twelve year old driver lost control. The jury denied him and his mother any recovery.

Appellants' principal contention is that despite appellees' admission of sponsorship and conduct of the Derby, the jury was nevertheless instructed that before appellees could be charged with a duty to exercise reasonable care, as invitors, it must first determine as a matter of fact that appellees possessed the control necessary to discharge that duty. We think this was error. The court should have instructed the jury that appellees, as a matter of law, occupied the status of invitors chargeable with the duty to exercise reasonable care.

It is perfectly clear that appellees would have been charged with such duty if the exhibition had been held on private property.¹ Whenever one invites others to come upon property for the purpose of viewing or participating in an event which he has set in motion and is conducting for some private purpose or benefit,² those invited have a right to assume not only that he has authority to use the property for that purpose but that he also possesses concomitant control or ability to employ adequate measures for the protection of invitees from foreseeable dangers arising out of such event.³ Thus, even an invitor who had neither the authority to use the private property upon which he had invited the public nor the control or ability to employ safety measures was nevertheless held liable for injuries resulting from the failure to employ such measures.⁴

We think this reasoning in respect of the issue of the invitor's control is applicable without regard to the public or private nature of the property onto which persons are invited.⁵ The public character of the property does not alter

211 F.2d 34

the private character of the invitor's purpose or benefit. Nor does it detract in any way from the representation implicit in the issuance of the invitation — one which holds out to the public that the invitor has both the authority to use the property and the concomitant ability to discharge an invitor's duty of providing a reasonably safe place for invitees to watch the race. "Liability to invitees is not imposed merely because of ownership, but because of the invitation. If the invitation includes a representation of ownership or control, justice and reason require that the invitor may be taken at his word in that aspect of the case as well as in others. This he is bound to know when he extends the invitation. Knowing the effect his conduct is to have upon the public, he is bound to act in reference to the situation he has thus created. If he wished to avoid such responsibility, he should not extend such an invitation. The holding out to the public created a relation. The relation gave rise to a duty to use some care. The measure of that duty is the obligation imposed by law upon one whose position the party has assumed."⁶

We held in O'Dwyer v. Northern Market Co., a case involving an invitor who had neither authority to use the public property nor control or ability to employ safety measures, that the invitor was nevertheless liable for failure to take proper precautions. "It matters not * * * that the market company may...