Exhibitors Herald and Moving Picture World (Apr-Jun 1930)

April 12, 1930 Exhibitors Herald-World 43 Contracts, Liens and Licenses Reviewing the decisions of the higher courts as they establish law of special significance to the show world By LEO T. PARKER ORDINARILY, a theatre owner is not liable in damages for injuries sustained by patrons as a result of the latters’ negligence. However, the testimony must prove that the patron realized the danger before the injury occurred. For example, in Kass V Glatzel (147 Atl. 652), it was disclosed that a vestibule inclines from the sidewalk to a theInjury atre entrance or door. A Patrons Patron noticed that the floor was wet. As she walked over it she slipped and fell. The fall caused her hands to come in contact with the floor and then she perceived the floor was soapy and slippery. Her clothes, which came in contact with the floor, were soapy and very dirty. She sued the proprietor to recover damages for her injuries, and proved these facts. The counsel for the proprietor argued that the patron was guilty of contributory negligence when she walked on the floor after observing that it was wet. However, since she did not know, until after her fall, that the floor was soapy and therefore unusually slippery, the court held that she was not negligent in walking on the floor and allowed her a small sum in damages, saying: “There was no testimony of any fact or circumstance which tended to indicate to her mind that the floor was dangerous to walk upon, and that it was a hazardous undertaking, on her part, to leave by the only exit afforded for that purpose.” Unauthorized Contracts W HILE it is true that an employer may rescind a contract made by an unauthorized employe and thereby relieve himself from liability, yet the repudiation must be made promptly, and if he accepts benefits from the agreement he is bound by its terms to exactly the same extent as where he authorized the employe to make the contract. For instance, in Ronconi V Cook (150 S. E. 4), an employe without proper authority hired a singer. The employe did not immediately rescind the contract but permitted the singer to appear at the performances, believing that the employer was willing to pay the compensation agreed to by the employe, which amounted to 20 per cent of the proceeds of each performance, after deducting certain expenses. Notwithstanding the fact that the employer did not authorize his employe to make the contract, the court held the singer entitled to recover 20 per cent of the proceeds of all performances and explained unusually important law on this subject in the following language, saying: “While there is no direct evidence of specific authority in Cook (employe) to make the contract, the record does disclose a situation that would amount at least to a fair inference that he was acting for the employer, who was in fact the beneficiary of the plaintiff’s (singer’s) labors and of any funds derived from the performances given under the contract. . . . Proof of express agency is not essential to the establishment of the relation of principal and agent. While the mere fact that one assumes to act as agent for another is not alone sufficient to show such relation, yet if the agent’s acts are so open, apparent, and notorious that it is evident that they must have been known to the principal, they are evidence of agency. So, agency may be inferred from the facts and circumstances, including conduct, dependent upon each particular case.” Material Men and Liens AlLTHOUGH a subcontractor furnishes a bond guaranteeing payment of materials used in the construction of a theatre building, the circumstances may be such that the bonding company is not liable for payment for the materials used by the subcontractor. For illustration, in Piedmont Company V Vance Plumbing Company (149 S. E. 858), it was disclosed that the owner of a lot leased it to the Stevenson Theatres, Inc., for 40 years. The theatre company erected a theatre building on the lot. One of the subcontractors furnished a bond and later abandoned his contract. The material man sued the principal contractor and the theatre company to recover the value of the material used in construction of the building. However, in view of the fact that the cost of completing the subcontractor’s unfinished work exceeded the balance of the contract price unpaid to the subcontractor, the court held the material man not entitled to a lien, saying: “The policy of the lien law is to protect subcontractors and laborers against loss for labor done and materials furnished in building, repairing or altering any house or other improvement on real estate, to the extent of the balance due the original contractor at the time of notice to the owner of claims therefor; but it is not provided that the owner shall be liable in excess of the contract price, unless he continues to pay after notice of claim from the subcontractor or laborer, and then only to the extent of such payments after notice. Stevenson Theatres, Inc., had the right under the terms of the contract to retain 15 per cent of the contract price until the completion of the work; and if the cost of completing the work exceeded the unpaid part of the contract price, there was no amount due the contractor, in contemplation of law, out of which the plaintiff’s (material man’s) claim should be paid, at the time its notice was given.” Theatre Licenses OrDINARILY, the courts interpret license laws to require the owner of one or more theatres to pay a separate license for each show. So held the higher court in City of Drumright V Strand Amusement Company (282 Pac. 218). In this case it was disclosed that a city ordinance provided: “Any person who shall own or manage any opera house, or picture show within the limits of the City of Drumright, shall pay a license therefor, the sum of $100 per year, payable in advance quarterly.” A theatre owner who operated two motion picture theatres contended that the ordinance was intended to compel payment of a license by the person operating moving picture shows, and not ( Continued on page 134)