Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 164
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno. Read the opinion of the Court — 112 Ohio St. 175
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1925·No. No. 18528·Published

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

1. One who expressly or by implication invites others ,to come upon his premises must exercise ordinary care to guard them against danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for the invitees.

2. Whether the management of a base ball club company in permitting practicing by I its base ball team in close proximity of the un-screened section of the grandstand between the two games of a “double header” is guilty of negligence, or whether a spectator sitting [165]*165in the unscreened portion of the grandstand at the time of the practicing is guilty of contributory negligence, is a question of fact for the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Matthias, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 164 (Ohio 1925).

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 164 (Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.