Young v. Ross, 30.

• Decision Date: 19 September 1941
• Docket Number: No. 30.,30.
• Citation: 21 A.2d 762,127 N.J.L. 211
• Parties: YOUNG et al. v. ROSS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

21 A.2d 762

127 N.J.L. 211

YOUNG et al.

v. ROSS et al.

No. 30.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 19, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Patrons of a place of amusement assume the risk of ordinary dangers normally attendant thereon and also the risks ensuing from conditions of which they know or of which, in the particular circumstances, they are charged with knowledge, and which inhere therein; and such risks are accepted as incident to the enjoyment of the service which they afford.

2. Plaintiff paid his fee and entered upon an "obstacle golf" course. On the course were various obstacles to both ball and player. On the seventh "fairway" was a slope of six inches descending at a 45 degree angle to the lower level. He had played a like course elsewhere. At the entrance was a prominent sign "Obstacle Golf". Plaintiff had safely played six holes on the course, encountering slopes of like hazard; on beginning the game he had been handed a score card which he used and on which was the conspicuous warning "Watch Your Step". He slipped on the aforesaid slope to his injury. Held, plaintiff assumed the risk of the danger which was the proximate cause of his injury.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Frank Young, by his next friend, Joseph Young, and by Joseph Young against Rodney Ross and Robert F. Fountain, Jr., to recover for personal injuries. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.

Judgment reversed.

J. Victor Carton and Durand, Ivins & Carton, all of Asbury Park, for appellants.

Theodore J. Labrecque and Parsons, Labrecquc & Borden, all of Red Bank, for respondents.

CASE, Justice.

Defendants appeal from a judgment entered in the Supreme Court pursuant to a jury verdict in the Monmouth Circuit against them for $5,099.51. The complaint alleged that the defendants owned and operated "an obstacle golf course under the name of 'Asbury Park Obstacle Golf" on the Boardwalk in Asbury Park; that the plaintiff, Frank Young, paid the admission fee, entered the course and, while making use of the facilities, was injured by defendants' negligence in the construction, maintenance and operation of the course.

Plaintiff was eighteen years of age. He had played the game before, not at this course but at Keansburg where there were comparable conditions. On the evening of June 14, 1939, he went to Asbury Park and paid his way into this concession. There was a sign which conspicuously showed the entertainment to be "Obstacle Golf". It is conceded that obstacle golf is intended, in a small way, to imitate a regular golf course. There are obstacles for both the ball and the player. The object is to circumvent the obstacles and to put the ball in the hole at the end of each "fairway" in the fewest possible number of strokes. On the course in question the obstacles took various forms, mounds, slopes, a windmill, a miniature stream flowing under pumped motion across the course, etc. A score card, marked "Asbury Park Obstacle Golf", was handed to the plaintiff. Above the space for the score it conspicuously bore the warning "Watch Your Step". Plaintiff used that card for scoring the six holes that he completed before his accident. He played those holes without incident. There were hazards on them that were of the same type as and that were equal to or greater than the one, presently to be mentioned, on the seventh hole. On the sixth hole, for instance, there was a slope that, in its size and general arrangement, was as steep as and in height equal to or greater than that on the seventh. Plaintiff then began playing the seventh hole, which had been played, over a period of about seven years, by more than three hundred and fifty thousand people without mishap. There were many players preceding him. The course was crowded. The "fairway" was about fifty feet long. Toward the farther end was the hole. Beyond the hole was the six inch slope and some feet beyond that was what was known as the backstop. Plaintiff "teed off" and played his ball. It went past the hole, down the slope, hit the backboard and slightly rebounded. He followed the ball "down". There was a path along the "fairway", put there for the players to use if they wished to do so. There were no obstacles on that path. Plaintiff could have taken it. He preferred to go down the "fairway". He fell at the point of the slope and was injured. Plaintiff did not testify that the slope or the angle at which it was built caused him to fall. Asked by his attorney how he fell he replied that his feet went from under him and that he then noticed the drop which he had not theretofore seen; all of which is consistent with the testimony of a chance observer that plaintiff stumbled over the golf stick with which he was playing.

Appellants present two main points, both turning upon the court's refusal to direct...