Katz v. Gow

In this action of tort for alleged negligence the judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the case comes here upon the exceptions of the plaintiff. There was evidence tending to prove the following facts.

*667The defendant operated in Worcester a driving range for the driving of golf balls. On Sunday, June 9, 1940, the plaintiff visited the range with one Mintz and another man. From fifty to seventy people were on the range. The plaintiff paid twenty-five cents to an attendant and received a golf club and a bucket of balls, as did each of his companions. The other people on the range were…