Court Opinion

ID: 9648587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:28:34.009024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:28.813362
License: Public Domain

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice (dissenting). I do not agree with the majority view. This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to appellant’s evidence. In such cases we are bound by the rule laid down in Werbe v. Holt, 217 Ark. 198, 229 S. W. 2d 295. That case requires the trial court to give the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the plaintiff and to rule against the plaintiff only if his evidence when so considered fails to make a prima facie case. The issue in determining whether a prima facie case has been established in this case, as I see it, is the issue of the right of Southland Racing Corporation to revoke the season pass held by appellant and not the issue of whether a proprietor of a privately owned place of amusement is under a duty to render services to everyone who seeks it. If that was the issue I would unhesitatingly agree with the majority opinion and the authorities therein cited to sustain their position. A careful reading of these authorities reveals, however, that they do not touch top, side or bottom the question of a pass or the revocation of a pass. The operations of a greyhound race track in this state is a highly controlled and regulated privilege granted by the State of Arkansas and the Rules and Regulation of the Arkansas State Racing Commission. Arkansas Statutes Annotated, §84-2827(A) (Repl. 1960), reads: “The Commission shall have full, complete and sole power and authority to promulgate rules, regulations and orders, and prescribe conditions, under which Greyhound Racing shall be conducted by a franchise holder, but the power and authority so granted shall be exercised by the Commission in a reasonable manner, and the holder of any franchise, or any taxpayer, shall have redress to the Pulaski County Circuit Court for any wrong committed by the Commission in the exercise of the power and authority granted herein. ’ ’ The law also gives the State Racing Commission the control and regulation of the issuance of all tax-free passes. Ark. Stat. Ann. §84-2835(B) (Repl. 1960). “The issuance of all tax free passes shall be under the regulations or orders of the Commission.” A season pass contains the following language: “1963 Season Pass Southland Greyhound Park, West Memphis, Ark. Under the auspices and with the compliments of the Arkansas State Racing Commission. /s/ J. Orville Cheney Issued to : Secretary - Form 5. ’ ’ ' The reverse side of a season pass reads as follows: “This ticket entitles person to whom issued admission to the track any night during 1963 season. It is not good for admission to the Kennel Club. Arkansas State Racing Commission reserves the right to revoke this courtesy without notice when deemed necessary.” The rules and regulations of the Arkansas State Racing Commission, of which we take judicial notice, Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. State, 90 Ark. 343, 119 S. W. 288, expressly state for what causes a franchise holder such as appellees can remove a patron from its premises. ‘ ‘ Rules Governing Greyhound Racing, §125-F: “Employees or patrons who are careless of the safety of themselves and others., negligent, insubordinate, dishonest, immoral, quarrelsome or otherwise vicious, or who do not conduct themselves in such manner and handle their personal matters while on the premises of said Greyhound Track in such a way that the franchise holder or Commission will not be subject to criticism or loss of good will, will be prohibited or removed from the premises of any Greyhound Track and denied wagering privileges.” Appellant introduced evidence showing that he possessed a season pass which was issued by the State Racing Commission; that the pass had not been revoked by the Commission; that Southland Racing Corporation summarily refused without cause to admit appellant to their premises; and continues to deny this privilege to appellant ; that he is a breeder, buyer and seller of greyhound dogs, that in pursuit of his vocation he must observe dog races; that he is being irreparably injured by the denial of his admission to the track to carry on-his lawful business. All of which considered together in the light of the law and the rules governing passes as set out above, in my view clearly makes a prima facie case under the rule of Werbe v. Holt, supra. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.