Williams v. Houston Baseball Ass'n., 11,258.

• Decision Date: 09 October 1941
• Docket Number: No. 11,258.,11,258.
• Citation: 154 S.W.2d 874
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. HOUSTON BASEBALL ASS'N.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 874

154 S.W.2d 874

WILLIAMS et al. v. HOUSTON BASEBALL ASS'N.

No. 11,258.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

October 9, 1941.

Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Roy F. Campbell, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Edith Williams and her husband against the Houston Baseball Association for injuries suffered when named plaintiff was struck by a foul ball while attending baseball game. From a judgment on an instructed verdict for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

W. O. Huggins, Jr., and Jack Binion, both of Houston (Kayser, Liddell, Benbow & Austin and Butler & Binion, all of Houston, of counsel), for appellants.

Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton and Albert P. Jones, all of Houston, for appellee.

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

This action was brought by appellants, Mrs. Edith Williams and her husband, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Mrs. Williams when she was struck by a foul ball while attending a baseball game in a ball park in Houston, Texas, owned, operated and maintained by appellee, Houston Baseball Association, in company with friends who had purchased tickets for the game for the box seats occupied by them located on the righthand side of and outside of the screened portion of the stands.

The record shows that Mrs. Williams had attended baseball games prior to the time she was injured; that appellee maintained a screen or netting which extended in front of the stands approximately half way of the distance from the home plate to first base; that she was familiar with the fact that part of the seats in the stands had a screened protection and that part of them did not, and that seats behind the screen were available to her on the evening in question. She was aware of the fact that foul balls from time to time passed into the unscreened portion of the stands. There was no testimony that the stands in question were constructed or screened in an improper or unusual manner.

Appellant contended that appellee was negligent in (a) failing to erect and maintain a screen over those seats occupied by her, and (b) in failing to warn her of the danger of occupying them at the time she was struck. Appellee answered by a general denial and pleas of contributory negligence and assumed risk.

At the conclusion of appellant's testimony, the jury, under instruction from the court, returned a verdict in favor of appellee.

It is now, we think, the settled law of this state, under the rule laid down in the recent case of Keys v. Alamo City Baseball Co., 150 S.W.2d 368, 370, by the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals, that operators of baseball parks are not insurers of the safety of their invited patrons, and that they are required to exercise only that kind and degree of care commensurate with the character of the amusement offered and the nature of the accommodation usually required for the comfort and convenience of their patrons. Quoting with approval from the opinion in the case of Ratcliff...