Court Opinion

ID: 9791436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:10:48.568634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.307193
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.
(concurring specially)—We are deciding this case in a vacuum. There is no statement of facts. There are no exceptions to the trial court’s findings or its conclusions.
The only evidentiary facts are: The plaintiff was a social guest at defendant’s summer home. The defendant endeavored to demonstrate with a golf club the proper swing,
“ . . . Several practice abbreviated swings were made by the defendant, but the plaintiff could not understand the instructions. The defendant thereupon turned and took *788a full force swing with the club, which on the upstroke struck the plaintiff under the left jaw, causing injuries to the plaintiff.”
The statement “That the plaintiff did use ordinary care for his own safety and well being under the circumstances” was also labeled as a finding of fact.
From these findings the following conclusions were drawn:
“I. That the plaintiff was a social guest on the premises of the defendant and as such a bare licensee.
“II. That the defendant owed to the plaintiff, a bare licensee, only the duty not to wilfully or wantonly injure him.
“HI. That the act of the defendant in swinging the golf club, was an act of ordinary negligence but was not wilful or wanton misconduct.
“IV. Defendant being liable only for wilful, wanton misconduct, the plaintiff must exercise more than ordinary care for his own safety, which he did not do. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances herein, plaintiff was, under the rule of law applicable, contributorily negligent, and the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at the conclusion of all of the evidence must be granted and this action dismissed with prejudice and the defendant recover his costs and disbursements herein to be taxed.”
The only material conclusion was part of No. Ill:
“That the act of the defendant in swinging the golf club, was an act of ordinary negligence . . . ”
This, together with the labeled finding: “That the plaintiff did use ordinary care for his own safety and well being under the circumstances,” calls for a judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability.
We are not told wherein the act of the defendant in swinging a golf club was negligent; nor are we told wherein the plaintiff “did use ordinary care for his own safety.” When this case is hereafter cited to us, it must be remembered that the negligence of the defendant and the lack of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff were both conceded.
*789That is all there is to the case, stripped of the fallacious contentions—that the defendant was not liable to his social guest for the defendant’s misconduct unless it was wilful or wanton; and that, consequently, the plaintiff as a guest was obligated to exercise more than ordinary care for his own safety at the hands of his host. (Cases dealing with the question of defective conditions of the premises are not pertinent; we are concerned with the positive actions of the property owner.)
I am in entire accord with the majority’s conclusion:
“. . . The mere fortuitous circumstance that this injury occurred while the plaintiff stood upon land belonging to the defendant should not relieve the latter of liability.”
Whether these parties were on a golf course, in a stranger’s vacant lot, or on the defendant’s lawn is quite immaterial so far as their duties toward each other are concerned.
Liability follows, as heretofore indicated, from the unchallenged findings and conclusions; hence, I concur in the remand with instructions to determine the plaintiff’s damages.
Ott, C. J., Donworth, and Weaver, JJ., concur with Hill, J.