We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
304
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
held not liable because he had a right to assume that the rail was properly constructed.30 In another case, the lessor was held blameless as the lessee had weakened the structure.31 In a third case the proprietor was permitted to maintain a balcony at an angle of fifty-five degrees without a second guard rail in front of the aisles.32 At best it is a question of fact for the jury.33
30 Greene v. Seattle A. C. (1910), 60 Wash. 300; 111 Pac. 157. Defendant leased an armory for one night only for a sporting exhibition, mostly of foot races. Plaintiff was on the balcony. During the races the crowd surged forward and caused the railing to break, injuring plaintiff. It wras not claimed that the balcony was overcrowded, but that the posts that held the railing wyere insecure.
Held that defendant was not bound to have the balcony inspected by experts, but had a right to assume that the building was structurally sound.
See: Edwards v. N. Y. & H. R. R. (1885), 98 N. Y. 245.
31 Bard v. New York (1882), 10 Daly (N. Y.), 520. Where the lessee of a hall had changed the balcony and put in boxes and had so weakened the structure that it fell and injured plaintiff, the landlord was held not liable, the lessee being at fault alone.
32 Dunning v. Jacobs (1895), 15 Atisc. (N. Y.) 85; 36 N. Y. Supp. 453. Plaintiff, in changing his seat in the gallery of the theatre slipped, fell over several rows of seats, over the guard rail and was precipitated into the orchestra. Held that the accident was not caused by defendant’s negligence, that it was not negligent for theatre manager not to provide a second guard rail or to maintain the gallery at an angle of 55 degrees.
See also: Camp v. Wood (1879), 76 N. Y. 92.
33 Schofield v. Wood (1898), 170 Mass. 415; 49 N. E. 636. Plaintiffs, while seated in the gallery of defendant’s hall, leaned on the rail, which gave way and caused their injury. There was some evidence to show that the rail was improperly constructed and insecurely fastened. Held, a question for the jury.
“A person erecting and using a hall for such exhibitions must