`The timorous may stay at home.' (Cardozo, Chief Justice, in Murphy v. SteeplechaseAmusement Co., 250 N.Y. 479, 166 N.E. 173.) * * * "In Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, pages 482-483, 105 A.2d 102, page 103, we said: `A person who plays golf (or cad[d]ies) assumes some risks of the game. For example, he knows that every star sometimes, and every `dub' ofttimes, hooks or slices, and that when he is playing (or caddying) on a parallel hole or on a parallel area of ground he may be struck by a wild shot * * * (and) risks being hit and injured. `In the instant case, the minor plaintiff testified that he knew the risk and accepted it and for this additional reason should not be allowed to recover.

The place where plaintiff was standing was within easy range of defendant's drive and where the ball would be likely to go if it hit somewhat off line. In reference to a situation of this kind, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said in Getz v. Freed, 1954, 377 Pa. 480, 483, 105 A.2d 102, 103: 'A player assumes the risk or is guilty of contributory negligence and want of due care if he intentionally or carelessly walks ahead of or stands within the orbit of the (golf) shot of a person playing behind him.'          Plaintiff contends that this statement of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should be disregarded as dictum.

" 407 Pa. at 154, 180 A.2d at 62, quoting Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, 485, 105 A.2d 102, 104-05 (1954) (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original). In this case, plaintiff testified that her husband habitually kept for his own expenses approximately $50.00 out of his weekly salary of $400.00 and gave the rest to her for family use.

The trial judge directed the verdict on the basis of the plaintiff's contributory negligence. His conclusion in that regard is backed by a statement by Mr. Justice Bell in Getz v. Freed, 1954, 377 Pa. 480, 105 A.2d 102, 103. Whether everything said by the court in that case is to be taken literally is a question which we do not have to examine closely here. We think, regardless of this statement however, there is good sense in the trial judge's conclusion that a player who has waved another to go through shows lamentable lack of care for his own safety if he puts himself in a position where he cannot take precautions against being hit.

Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 453-54, 197 A.2d 721, 727 (1964). See also, Smail v. Flock, 407 Pa. 148, 180 A.2d 59 (1962); Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, 105 A.2d 102 (1954). "If the facts afford a reasonably fair basis for calculating how much plaintiff's entitled to, such evidence cannot be regarded as legally insufficient to support a claim for compensation."

Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 453-54, 197 A.2d 721, 727 (1964). See also, Small [Smail] v. Flock, 407 Pa. 148, 180 A.2d 59 (1962); Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, 105 A.2d 102 (1954). "If the facts afford a reasonably fair basis for calculating how much plaintiff's entitled to, such evidence cannot be regarded as legally insufficient to support a claim for compensation."

Gettis), who had not yet completed his first full day on the job, as to what this move was. The case of Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, 105 A.2d 102 (1954), is clearly distinguishable, since the rules of golf prescribed what the next indicated move of the golfer was in that case and there was no past history of the golf player having broken such rules. The decedent knew that moving the crane from under the wires before placing the boom in position for the trip to Bridgeport would require W. Morello to enter the cab to move the crane from under the wires, then enter the house to move the boom and bucket, and finally reenter the cab, whereas only one trip to the cab would be required if W. Morello entered the house first and moved the boom and bucket while the crane was still under the high tension wires and then entered the cab for the drive to Bridgeport.

This Court has consistently held that the law does not require proof in support of claims for damages to conform to the standard of mathematical exactness; if the facts afford a reasonably fair basis for calculating the amount to which plaintiff is entitled, such evidence cannot be regarded as legally insufficient to support a claim for damages. Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, 485, 105 A.2d 102 (1954); Western Show Co., Inc. v. Mix, 308 Pa. 215, 162 A. 667 (1932) accord, Vizzini v. Ford Motor Co., 569 F.2d 754, 762-763 (3d Cir. 1977). The facts as found by the Board indicate that appellant calculated his damages by reformulating the unit price, substituting the actual trenching distances of each area for those given in the bid specifications.

Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 453-54, 197 A.2d 721, 727 (1964). See also, Small v. Flock, 407 Pa. 148, 180 A.2d 59 (1962); Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, 105 A.2d 102 (1954). "If the facts afford a reasonably fair basis for calculating how much plaintiff's entitled to, such evidence cannot be regarded as legally insufficient to support a claim for compensation."

' " In Getz v. Freed, 377 Pa. 480, 105 A.2d 102, we said (pages 482-483): "A person who plays golf [or caddies] assumes some risks of the game. Cf. Benjamin v. Nernberg, 102 Pa. Super. 471, 157 A. 10; Douglas v. Converse, 248 Pa., supra.