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.
308
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
light of the facts that usually obtain, seems unnecessarily harsh and unjust.
It has beenheld that the theatre proprietor is under a
New Theatre v. Hartlove (1914), 123 Md. 78; 90 Atl. 990. The appellee was injured by reason of a fall while seeking a seat in a darkened theatre.
Ordinary care and diligence was held to be the measure of defendant’s duty, and a verdict in favor of plaintiff was upheld in view of all the evidence.
Pattison v. Livingston Am. Co. (1913), 156 A. D. (N. Y.) 368; 141 N. Y. Supp. 588. Plaintiff entered the balcony while the theatre was dark. Her seats were in the fifth row from the front. Without waiting for any assistance, she groped her way along, and was injured.
Held, that she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Butcher v. Hyde (1897), 152 N. Y. 142; 46 N. E. 305. It was held error for the trial court to refuse to charge that if plaintiff fell from the fourth or fifth step the verdict must be for the defendants where there was no proof of any defect in the stairway of a theatre except in the condition of a strip of rubber on the sixth step.
Andre v. Mertens et al. (1916), 96 Atl. (N. J.) 893. Plaintiff in leaving defendant’s motion picture theatre, descended a stairway leading from the balcony to the entrance floor. Because of the dark condition of the stairway, she lost her footing in a turn of the stairs and was precipitated to the platform below. In affirming a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the court said:
“The proprietor of a theatre conducted for reward or profit, to which the general public are invited to attend performances must use ordinal care to make the premises as reasonably safe as is consistent with the practical operation of the theatre, and if he fails in this duty, he may be held liable for personal injuries occasioned thereby; and this rule applies to the proprietor of a moving picture show.”
See also: Owens v. Associated Realties (1911), 81 N. J. Law, 586; 80 Atl. 325; Branch v. Klatt (1911b 165 Mich. 666; 131 N. W. 107; same case after retrial 173 Mich. 31; 138 N. W. 263; Valentine Co. v. Sloan (1912), 53 Ind. App. 69; 101 N. E. 102.