Kavafian v. Seattle Baseball Club Ass'n

Citations

• 105 Wash. 215
• 177 P. 776
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 562

Syllabus

<p>Theaters and Shows (2)—Baseball Exhibition—Negligence— Evidence—Sueeiciency. Evidence by defendant to the effect that a grand stand at a baseball park was screened from foul balls for sixty feet on each side of the center, in accordance with plans for the structure, raises an implication or admission of negligence in failing to protect spectators by screens for more than thirty feet on each side of the center.</p> <p>Same (2) — Contributory Negligence — Question eob Jury. Whether a spectator at a ball game, struck by a foul ball, was guilty of contributory negligence or assumed the risk, in taking a seat in the grand stand unprotected by screens when there were vacant seats so protected, involves the question whether he acted as a reasonably prudent person in relying on the implied representation that his seat was reasonably safe, and is for the jury (Overruled on rehearing).</p> <p>Evidence (199-1)—Opinion Evidence—Due Care—Conclusions. In an action for injuries sustained by a spectator struck by a foul ball at a baseball game, a witness who was an authority on the game and familiar with the situation may not be asked whether there was sufficient screening of the grand stand for the protection of the spectators, as it calls for a conclusion to be drawn only by the jury.</p> <p>• On Rehearing En Banc.</p> <p>Theaters and Shows (2)—Contributory Negligence—Assumption oe Risks. A spectator, at a ball game, struck by a foul ball, who voluntarily took and retained a seat in the unscreened section of the grand stand when there were a great number of vacant seats protected by screens'that he might have chosen, assumes the risks or is guilty of contributory negligence precluding any recovery (Mitchell, Tolman, and Main, JJ., dissenting).</p>