Court Opinion

ID: 9723421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:14:10.611387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:48.676169
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, C. J.
(concurring). I concur in reversal for the last reason stated in Mr. Justice Smith’s opinion. Defendant Dalrymple, a member of the golf “foursome,” saw the infant plaintiff and the other small children directly ahead in the middle of the fairway. Even after the children had moved somewhat following his claimed warning, he knew they were still in a place of possible danger when he drove a golf ball in their direction and when be *252■watched defendant Hayman, another member of the foursome, strike and send into the direction of these children the ball which hit plaintiff. Dalrymple was an employee of Powers in the golf course operation. Notice to Dalrymple was notice to his employer, Powers. Robbins v. Magoon & Kimball Co., 186 Mich 672. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior the negligence of Dalrymple, if any, and his liability for resultant damage is chargeable to his employer, Powers. Stewart v. Napuche, 334 Mich 76. Under the holding in Keiswetter v. Rubenstein, 235 Mich 36 (48 ALR 1049), defendant city was engaged in a joint enterprise with Powers in operating the golf course and, thus, his negligence and that of his employee in furtherance of the joint enterprise is is imputed to defendant city. In considering the duty of a landowner to persons thereon with respect to avoiding injury to them through active negligence, we quoted in Polston v. S. S. Kresge Company, 324 Mich 575, 580, from Schmidt v. Michigan Coal & Mining Co., 159 Mich 308, 311, 312, the following:
“After the owner of premises is aware of the presence of a trespasser or licensee, or if in the exercise of ordinary care he should know of their presence, he is bound to use ordinary care to prevent injury to . them arising from active negligence.”
. In Herrick v. Wixom, 121 Mich 384, 388 (6 Am Neg Rep 576), we said:
“Where a trespasser is discovered upon the premises by the owner or occupant, he is not beyond the pale of the law, and any negligence resulting in injury will render the person guilty of negligence liable to respond in damages.”
It is to be noted that in Herrick, Polston, and Schmidt, as here, the claim of active negligence was involved.
*253As for the question of negligence, I do not wish to be understood to say that such question is invariably presented whenever one drives a golf ball on a golf course in the direction of others who are ahead, particularly if they are adults. As was said, however, in Edgerton v. Lynch, 255 Mich 456, 460:
“The courts have properly held drivers to a stricter degree of care when they see children on the road than when they see adults. Silberstein v. Showell, Fryer & Co., 267 Pa 298 (109 A 701); Ratcliffe v. McDonald’s Administrator, 123 Va 781 (97 SE 307); Jacoby v. Gallaher, 10 La App 42 (120 So 888).”
And in Powers v. Harlow, 53 Mich 507, 515 (51 Am Rep 154), this Court said: 1
“Children,-wherever they go, must be expected to act upon childish instincts and impulses; and others who are chargeable with a duty of care and caution towards them must calculate upon this, and take precautions accordingly.”
Here defendants knew of the presence of small children within the range of a flying golf ball before the foursome. Whether, under such circumstances, it was negligence to drive or permit the driving of a ball in the direction of such small children presented, as I think, a question of fact for the jury.
I concur in reversing and remanding for entry of judgment on verdict of the jury.
Carr and Kelly, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, C. J.