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.

ARTICLES DROPPING 311 Nor is the owner liable because plaintiff had tripped over a mat in the foyer near the ticket office.43 Section 96. — Articles dropping. When a patron is injured by the fall of a part of the ceiling or chandelier, the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies, and the burden is on the proprietor to show that he was free from negligence. In such a case proof that the premises were regularly and carefully inspected will not relieve him from liability.44 To hold otherwise would be to place a premium upon carelessness on the part of theatre proprietors. It has been held in Flanagan v. Goldberg 45 that a charge entrance he stepped out upon a dark platform. Held that defendant was not liable for the injury resulting. 43 Holmes v. United Theatres (1915), 152 N. W. (Mich.) 987. See generally: Norton v. Hudner (1913), 213 Mass. 257; 100 N. E. 546; De Velin v. Swanson (1909), 72 Atl. (R. I.) 388; Dwyer v. Hills Bros. (1903), 79 A. D. (N. Y.) 45; 79 N. Y. Supp. 785; Reeves v. Fourteenth St. Theatre (1906), 110 A. D. (N. Y.) 735; 96 N. Y. Supp. 448; Dudley v. Abraham (1907), 122 A. D. (N. Y.) 480; 107 N. Y. Supp. 97; Meyer v. Grand Rapids Chair Co. (1914), 180 Mich. 604, 147 N. W. 488. 44 Goldstein v. Levy (1911), 74 Misc. (N. Y.) 463; 132 N. Y. Supp. 373. But see : Sheets v. Sunbry (1912), 237 Pa. St. 153; 85 Atl. 92. Plaintiff, while attending an amusement park, stopped under a tree. A limb or branch fell upon him, injuring him, and the testimony showed that it appeared to be decayed, although there was some dispute as to that. It appeared that two days prior thereto an inspection of the park had been made. Held that defendant was not liable and judgment in plaintiff’s favor reversed. 45 Flanagan v. Goldberg (1910), 137 A. D. (N. Y.) 92; 122 N. Y. Supp. 205. Plaintiff was injured by a board falling in a