The law of motion pictures (1918)

306 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES fined as ordinary care, even where the seats of a grand stand had collapsed it was held nevertheless that he was liable for defects in the structure of the building which resulted in the giving way of the flooring.35 The safer practice on the part of the proprietor is to make a thorough inspection of his building every day, paying particular attention to the seats. An inspection of this kind has been judicially defined as a full compliance Math the proprietor’s duty to his patrons.36 Section 95. — Tripping in darkened theatre — aisles — steps — exits. The case of Branch v. Klatt 37 has laid down the best 35 Texas State v. Britton (1902), 118 Fed. (C. C. A.) 713. Plaintiff was injured by the falling of seats in a grand stand. Held that the corporation operating the State Fair and advertising the side-show was liable in damages. See also: Van Antwerp v. Linton (1895), 89 Hun (N. Y.), 417; 35 N. Y. Supp. 318; aff’d 157 N. Y. 716; 53 N. E. 1133; Huneke v. West Brighton Am. Co. (1903), 80 A. D. (N. Y.) 268; 80 N. Y. Supp. 261. Brown v. So. Kennebec (1859), 47 Maine, 275. The proprietor was held liable to a patron for injuries caused because of negligence in the construction of a building resulting in the fall or giving way of the flooring. See also: Latham v. Roach (1874), 72 111. 179. 36 Glynn v. Lyceum Theatre Co. (1913), 87 Conn. 237; 87 Atl. 796. “The lessee did not insure the absolute safety of the theatre seats; it, by its invitation to its guests, assumed the duty toward them of exercising reasonable care to see that the seats were in a reasonably safe condition for its guests, Turgeon v. Connecticut Co. (1911), 84 Conn. 538 , 541; 80 Atl. 714. It performed this duty by having its servant examine the seats each day and report their condition, and thereafter repairing the defective ones. ” 37 Branch v. Klatt (1911), 165 Mich. 666; 131 N. W. 107; after retrial 173 Mich. 31; 138