Court Opinion

ID: 9648586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:28:34.005105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:28.769099
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J. The appellee Southland owns a greyhound race track near West Memphis. The appellant Griffin buys, breeds, and sells racing dogs. The management of Southland decided that Griffin was not a desirable spectator at the track and refused to admit him to the premises. Griffin brought this suit to restrain Southland from denying him admittance to the track. This appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to Griffin’s evidence and dismissing his complaint. In reviewing such an order we give the plaintiff’s proof its strongest probative force. Werbe v. Holt, 217 Ark. 198, 229 S. W. 2d 225. Griffin owns a half interest in 120 shares of stock in the Southland corporation. He seeks admission to the track, however, not in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder but in the pursuit of his vocation, for he must observe dog races at firsthand to select the best animals for breeding. In his complaint Griffin based his cause of action upon the fact that he held two free passes to the South-land track. One was a stockholder’s pass issued by Southland, the other a tax-free season pass issued by the Arkansas Racing Commission. Each pass recites that it may be revoked by the issuer. Griffin’s stockholder’s pass was revoked by Southland before the trial beloAv, but his tax-free pass has not been revoked by the Racing Commission. The chancellor’s decision was correct. If Griffin had based his complaint upon his willingness to pay the price of admission to the track rather than upon his possession of the two passes it is clear that he could not have stated a cause of action. Apart from any possible issue of civil rights, which are not involved here, the controlling rules of law are firmly settled by many decisions in many jurisdictions. The proprietor of a privately owned place of amusement, such as a race track or a theater, is not under a common carrier’s duty to render service to everyone who seeks it. It is uniformly held that the proprietor may refuse to admit, or may eject from his premises, persons he thinks to be undesirable. If the prospective patron has already bought his ticket he may be able to maintain an action for breach of contract, or if he is ejected with unnecessary force he may be able to maintain an action in tort. But, owing to the management’s right to exclude anyone it pleases, the patron cannot obtain the aid of the courts in seeking to compel his admission to the premises. Many of the cases are reviewed in Garifine v. Monmouth Park Jockey Club, 29 N. J. 47, 148 A. 2d 1, and Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, 296 N. Y. 249, 72 N. E. 2d 697, annotated in 1 A. L. R. 2d 1160. Griffin’s position is not strengthened by his possession of the unrevoked tax-free pass. The statute permits the Racing Commission to regulate the issuance of such courtesy passes, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84-2835 (Repl. 1960), but in fact no regulations have been issued. Even though the passes are in form issued by the Commission the testimony shows that in reality the Commission leaves the whole matter to Southland, which distributes passes as it chooses. Griffin’s pass was not actually issued to him in the first instance; he received it as a gift from someone else. It is quite apparent that these passes are intended to serve no purpose except that of providing free admission to the track, as an inducement to public attendance at the races. There is no indication that any effort is made to keep the passes from coming into the hands of bookmakers, touts, pickpockets, and others unwelcome at the track. Thus the pass does not represent in any degree whatever an expressed desire on the part of the Commission that a certain person is to be admitted to the track. The pass is simply a substitute for the price of admission—nothing more. It follows that since a prospective patron may be excluded by management even though he offers to pay the price of admission, he may be similarly excluded when he seeks entrance as the holder of a pass. Affirmed. Johnson, J., dissents.