Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/516

 The Evolution of a Legal Sky Pilot. arily and naturally produced the acts of the others. In conclusion the court said, "I will not say that ascending in a balloon is an unlawful act, for it is not so, but it is certain that the aeronaut has no control over his motion horizontally; he is at the sport of the winds and is compelled to descend when and how he can; his reaching the earth is a matter of hazard. He did descend on the premises of the plaintiff, at a short distance from the place where he ascended. Now if his de scent, under such circumstances would or dinarily and naturally draw a crowd of peo ple about him, either from curiosity or for the purpose of rescuing him from a perilous situation—all this he ought -to have foreseen and must be responsible for. Whether the crowd heard him call for help or not, is im material; he had put himself in a situation to invite help, and they rushed forward, im pelled perhaps by the double motive of rend ering aid and gratifying a curiosity which he had excited. Can it be doubted that if the defendant had beckoned to the crowd to come to his assistance, that he would be liable for their trespass in entering the inclosure? I think not. In that case they would have been co-trespassers, and we must consider the situation in which he placed himself, voluntarily and designedly, as equiv alent to a direct request to the crowd to fol low him. In the present case, he did call for help, and may have been heard by the crowd1; he is, therefore, undoubtedly liable for all the injury sustained." This case came out of the city and State of New York, about the year 1822. The sec ond case comes from near Richmond, Vir ginia, where the cause of action originated in 1893, and after being ventillated by law yers and courts, reached an end in 1897. In this case a street railway company was the defendant, and ran its cars to a park. This park was owned by the company, was under its control and management, was kept

465

opened to the public and was made attrac tive in various ways, to induce people to make it a pleasure resort and thereby gain patronage for the street railway. The de fendant employed and paid one Peter Blum, to go upon their park premises and make three balloon ascensions, on separate dates. The defendant advertised these performances in the newspapers, by handbills and other wise, and in this manner extended to the public an invitation to visit its premises and witness the balloon ascensions. This invita tion drew a large crowd to the defendant's premises, and on the evening of the last day advertised, there were many children pres ent, among them the plaintiff's intestate, a little boy eight years and six months old. In arranging for the balloon ascension, two poles, each about forty feet long, were placed in an upright position fifty feet apart and secured by guy ropes attached to stakes driven in the ground. A rope was run from the top of one pole to the top of the other, and the balloon was swung to this rope, un til inflated and ready to ascend, when the guy ropes were released and the poles were thrown clown. By the evidence it appeared that the crowd generally knew nothing of the danger they would be in from the fall ing of the poles and supposed the poles were fixed and stationary; that the grown people, as well as the children, had crowded around the poles, watching the inflation and other preparations for the ascension. As the bal loon was about ready to go up, Blum made some effort to clear away for the first pole to fall, and a signal was given to look out. The people took this to mean that the bal loon was about to go up and it created great excitement and running for better points ot view. At this juncture the pole was released and fell, striking the plaintiff's intestate on the head and killing him. The first proposition of law the above sit uation suggested, was that when one ex pressly or by implication invites others to