MurphyvSteeplechaseAmusementCo副本.doc

250 N.Y. 479 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 250 N.Y. 479(Cite as: 250 N.Y. 479, 166 N.E. 173)Yel FlgMurphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.250 N.Y. 479N.Y. 1929.250 N.Y. 479166 N.E. 173JAMES MURPHY, an Infant, by JOHN MURPHY, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent,v.STEEPLECHASE AMUSEMENT CO., INC., Appellant.Court of Appeals of New York.Submitted March 25, 1929.Decided April 16, 1929.CITE TITLE AS: Murphy v Steeplechase Amusement Co.NegligenceAmusements --- Dangers obviously inherent in sport accepted by those who takepart --- Visitor to amusement park injured by fall from moving belt ---Negligence not predicated on testimony that he felt a jerk, where only risk wasa fall and that was invited and foreseen --- Testimony of nurse that she hadattended others injured at the sport not sufficient to show it perilous whereused by a great number --- Verdict not sustained upon theory of liabilitydifferent from that upon which case was submitted1. One who takes part in a sport accepts the dangers that inhere in it so faras they are obvious and necessary.2. Where, therefore, a visitor to an amusement park, after watching theoperation of a moving belt which caused many who rode thereon either to jump orfall, stepped on the belt and, as he did so, felt what he describes as a suddenjerk and was thrown to the floor, receiving injury, negligence cannot bepredicated merely upon the statement of his sensations. Whether the movement ofthe belt was uniform or irregular, the risk at greatest was a fall and that wasthe hazard invited and foreseen.3. Testimony of a nurse employed at an emergency hospital, maintained inconnection with the park, that she had attended patrons who had been injured atthe same sport, though none seriously, is not enough to show that the game wasa trap for the unwary, too perilous to be endured, where it appears there weretwo hundred and fifty thousand visitors thereto in one year.4. A verdict may not be sustained upon a