NOTES OF RECENT CASES OF IMPORTANCE FROM THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM. (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)
AMUSEMENT PARK. (INJURIES CAUSED BY FIRE WORKS — LIABILITY OF OWNER.) SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK.
In Deyo r. Kingston Consol. R. Co., 87 New York Supplement, 487, it is held that an owner of a public amusement park, to which an admission fee is charged, is not liable in damages to a patron who is struck by a rocket while witnessing an exhibition of fireworks given by an independent contrac tor. The owner of the park, when he in vited the public upon its ground, had no rea son to apprehend that any injury would re sult from the discharge of the fireworks. It was not a condition which it knew or ought to have known threatened injury to those attending. "There are instances, and this may be one of them, which would seem to indicate that sound public policy should re quire that whoever invites the public to witness an entertainment on his premises, for a compensation, should be held liable for the negligent act of any one who takes part in exhibiting it; but, on the other hand, I can conceive of instances where such a rule would Ъе a harsh and unjust one. I do not find that the courts have, as yet, settled upon such a rule as the law of the land, and I am not disposed to declare it to be the law in this case." ASSAULT AND BATTERY. (FRIENDLY SCUFFLE — LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTAL INJURY.)
KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS. Gibeline r. Smith, 80 Southwestern Re porter, 961, involved the question whether an action would lie for an injury which was accidentally received in a friendly scuffle. Defendant was a collector for a brewery. He drove around to different saloons one or more times a week to collect accounts aris ing from the sale of beer. Plaintiff kept a lunch counter in one of these saloons. Thev
had been friends for many years, and were in the habit of joking one another and scuffling together in a playful way. In a scuffle of this nature plaintiff was injured. Afterwards this action was brought to re cover damages for the injuries received. In stating its conclusions that damages were not recoverable for injuries accidentally re ceived in a friendly scuffle, the court says: "It is our opinion that if the parties to this controversy each voluntarily engaged in a friendly scuffle, and the defendant, without intending so to do, accidentally hurt the plaintiff, no action will lie. The mutual and lawful character of the act of the parties pre vents liability attaching for an accident which may result to either. We do not say that a lawful act resulting in unintentional injury necessarily excuses the party commit ting it. But if the act is lawful, and is in vited and participated in by another, and an injury unintentionally results, no liability arises. To hold otherwise would be to say that all untoward results from the play of men or boys in which they mutually engage would furnish a cause for an action by the injured party. Play, even though rough or dangerous, if mutually engaged in, is not un lawful, otherwise athletic games now and always common to the people would not have had the sanction which ages have given them." CONTRACT NOT TO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS. (BREACH — INJUNCTION AGAINST THIRD PAR TIES.) COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY.
In Fleckenstein Bros. Co. v. Fleckenstein. 57 Atlantic Reporter, 1025, it was detertermined that where a proprietor of a busi ness has sold the same, and has covenanted not to engage in that business as agent or servant, strangers to the contract, who es
