Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0339-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WILLIAMS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 390
    G. A. BOECKLING CO. v. SLATTERY
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Erie Co.
    No. 234.
    Decided April 21, 1927
    829. NEGLIGENCE — Where one is injured at a pleasure resort by reason of a baseball being thrown wild at a concession upon the ground, the injured party is an invitee and the operating company owes a duty of ordinary care and to make the grounds reasonably safe for such invitee.
    1235. VERDICT — When one received a permanent injury and is forced to give up remunerative employment a verdict of $5000 is not excessive.
    First Publication of this Opinion
    Attorneys — E. H. Savord, Sandusky, for Company; J. M. JFriedlander, Cleveland, and J. F. McCrystal, Sandusky, for Slattery.
   WILLIAMS, J.

May Slattery brought an action in the Erie Common Pleas against the G. A. Boeckling Co. to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while she was a visitor upon the pleasure resort grounds of Boeckling by reason of being hit by a baseball which was thrown by some unknown person, at a concession operated by one E. D. Forbes.

Boeckling had leased to Forbes a concession which consisted of a ball throwing device. There were no protecting screens on the sides of same, the space outside of the portion leased remaining under the control of Boeck-ling. Upon trial of the case in the court below, a verdict of $5000 was returned for Slat-tery and this is a proceeding in error to reverse the lower court.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. Slattery came upon the grounds by invitation, and at the time of the injury the grounds were under the control of Boeckling who owed her the duty of ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for invitees. Baseball Co. v. Eno, 112 OS. 175.

2. The case was properly one in which the question of the negligence of the company, proximate cause, and contributory negligence were for the jury, the verdict was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and court below submitted the issues to the jury in a charge which was free from prejudicial error.

3. The verdict is not excessive a s Slattery has an injury of a permanent nature and was forced to give up remunerative employment.

Judgment affirmed.

(Richards & Lloyd, JJ., concur.)