Clipping:Assumption of risk and foul balls
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, March 30, 1887 |
|---|---|
| Text | James E. Dolen went to the Polo Grounds on June 8 last to see the Chicago and New York clubs play ball. He had a seat on one of the lower benches of the grand stand directly behind the catcher. In the course of the game Anson tipped a foul ball over catcher Ewing’s head, and landed it on Dolan’s eye. The sight of the eye was destroyed and a glass eye was substituted. Dolen sued the Metropolitan Exhibition Company in the Supreme Court, claiming $25,000 damages for negligence, and the case was brought to trial before Judge Donohue yesterday [3/21]. Several witnesses testified for the plaintiff that there was no wire screen back of the catcher to protect the spectators, and that such a screen was necessary to safety. Lawyer W. H. Reed, for Dolen, argued that the absence of protection against foul balls constituted negligence on the part of the Exhibition Company. There was no disputed as to the fact in the suit, but Judge Donohue dismissed the complaint, holding that there was nothing to show atht the company had been guilty of negligence or that it was compujlsory upon it to put up a screen or network. He said that the company appeared to have taken all necessary precautions to prevent accidents, and when a ticket to the grand stand was sold it was a mutual contract between the company and the purchaser that a seat would be provided, and a game of ball played. That ended the contract, and the spectator must take all risks of accidents. |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />