The law of motion pictures (1918)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

TRIPPING IN DARKENED THEATRE, ETC. 307 rule of all the reported decisions with respect to the liability of the theatre proprietor when his theatre is darkened during a performance. It holds that the patron, in such case, has the right to rely on the premises being in safe condition, and that his duty is lighter than that of a pedestrian. That is an eminently sensible doctrine, and should be followed in all the states. Unfortunately, it is not. The courts generally adhere to the old rule of ordinary care and contributory negligence,38 something which in the N. W. 263. Plaintiff was hurt by descending the steps situated at the exit of a theatre after dark. The question was whether by using this exit plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. “One would have the right to presume that the defendant had discharged his duty of having the premises in a reasonably safe condition, as to lights and construction; and the ordinary person would naturally suppose that it would be safe to pass along a passageway provided for his exit, with reasonable assurance of its being in safe condition. The very fact of the premises being maintained in a darkened condition might give him added assurance of its being reasonably safe. . . . The duty of a person in a theatre, where he has been invited, is lighter than that resting upon one passing along the public streets.” See also: Andre v. Mertens et al. (1916), 96 Atl. (N. J.) 893. “It is next argued that the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law in attempting to leave the theatre before the show was finished. Not so. The defendants commonly exhibited the same pictures' over and over again on the same evening, and it was quite usual for patrons to depart at any time.” 38 Hollenback v. Clernmer (1912), 66 Wash. 565; 119 Pac. 1114. Plaintiff had attended a movingpicture show and on leaving the theatre was directed by the usher to take a particular exit. There was a step down of seven inches at this exit. Not noticing this step she was precipitated to the ground and injured. Held that defendant was not liable; that plaintiff should have used her sense of sight and looked where she was stepping.