Home/Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York/Hammel v. Madison Square Garden Corp.

Hammel v. Madison Square Garden Corp.

156 Misc. 311, 279 N.Y.S. 815, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1179
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedApril 25, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 156 Misc. 311 (Hammel v. Madison Square Garden Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hammel v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 156 Misc. 311, 279 N.Y.S. 815, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellants, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Plaintiff, a spectator at a hockey match, was injured by being struck by the puck. Plaintiff was seated in the front row at the side of the rink. The rink was equipped, as practically all such rinks are, with nets at each end behind the goal, but no nets on the sides. The proof showed that occasionally the puck would come over the wooden railing that was about three and one-half feet high, into the seats where the spectators sat.

No case has been found which passes upon this exact situation. There are, however, a number of cases where spectators at baseball games have been injured by batted balls coming into the stand. The concensus of opinion in those cases is that there is no liability; that the proprietors of a baseball park are not obliged to screen all the seats; that spectators occupying seats that are not screened assume the risk incident to such use. (Blackhall v. Capitol District Baseball Assn., 154 Misc. 640; Brisson v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Assn., 185 Minn. 507; 240 N. W. 903; Crane v. Kansas City Baseball [312]*312& Exhibition Co., 168 Mo. App. 301; 153 S. W. 1076; Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., Inc., 16 La. App. 95; 133 So. 408; Kavafian v. Seattle Baseball Club Assn., 105 Wash. 215; 177 P. 776; 181 id. 679; Curtis v. Portland Baseball Club, 130 Oreg. 93; 279 P. 277; Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno, 112 Ohio St. 175, 180, 181; 147 N. E. 86.) The baseball cases seem to present the same legal question that confronts us here. Upon the general question of the liability of a proprietor of an amusement resort, see, also, Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., Inc. (250 N. Y. 479): Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (L. R. [1933] 1 K. B. 205).

Present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Bonynge, JJ.

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

Related

Sawyer v. State
127 Misc. 2d 295 (New York State Court of Claims, 1985)
Benjamin v. State
115 Misc. 2d 71 (New York State Court of Claims, 1982)
Riley v. Chicago Cougars Hockey Club, Inc.
427 N.E.2d 290 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1981)
Cadieux v. Board of Education of City School District
25 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Grynewytsch v. State
207 Misc. 777 (New York State Court of Claims, 1955)
Morris v. Cleveland Hockey Club, Inc.
157 Ohio St. (N.S.) 225 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1952)
Scala v. City of New York
200 Misc. 475 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
Morris v. Cleveland Hockey Club, Inc.
98 N.E.2d 49 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1951)
Uline Ice, Inc. v. Sullivan
187 F.2d 82 (D.C. Circuit, 1950)
Hunt v. Thomasville Baseball Co.
56 S.E.2d 828 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Shurman v. Fresno Ice Rink Inc.
205 P.2d 77 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
Modec v. City of Eveleth
29 N.W.2d 453 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1947)
Tite v. Omaha Coliseum Corp.
12 N.W.2d 90 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1943)
Jones v. Kane & Roach, Inc.
182 Misc. 37 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Hudson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, Inc.
164 S.W.2d 318 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1942)
Zeitz v. Cooperstown Baseball Centennial, Inc.
31 Misc. 2d 142 (New York Supreme Court, 1941)
Rabiner v. Rosenberg
176 Misc. 885 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1941)
Thurman v. Ice Palace
97 P.2d 999 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Adonnino v. Village of Mount Morris
171 Misc. 383 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)
Ingersoll v. Onondaga Hockey Club, Inc.
245 A.D. 137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 Misc. 311, 279 N.Y.S. 815, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammel-v-madison-square-garden-corp-nyappterm-1935.