Douglas v. Converse

Citations

• 248 Pa. 232
• 93 A. 955
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 551

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Horses—Spectators at polo game — Trampling of spectators hy horses — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. There is in the game of polo the element of risk, and both players and bystanders assume the chance of the ordinary dangers incident to the game in participating in and witnessing the contest. Spectators, however, do not assume a risk which results from reckless playing, or the failure of a player to control and guide a horse so as to avoid accident when such control is reasonably possible. They have a right to assume that the game will be played within boundaries, and that players will not voluntarily or without reasonable effort upon their part to prevent, permit their horses to leave the field limits.</p> <p>2. If in a polo game a horse becomes unmanageable, gets beyond control of the rider and rushes beyond the field boundaries, and injury results to an onlooker, no negligence can be charged to the rider.</p> <p>Evidence — Opinion evidence.</p> <p>3. In an action by a spectator at a polo game to recover damages from one of the players resulting from injuries received by the player’s horse getting beyond the boundaries of the field, where the plaintiff was standing, where a witness testifies that the player had no control over his horse, the value or worth of the opinion was for the jury, whose province it was under all the evidence to say whether the horse became unmanageable.</p>