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.
312
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
to tliis effect was error, but the special facts in that case must be considered, as there was indication that the board had been placed by strangers. The better rule would be to give the patron the benefit of every liberal construction, for he enters at the invitation of the owner, and relies upon the latter’s prudence and carefulness in the maintenance of the premises.46
Special circumstances might arise when the proprietor would not be held liable, as in case of a sudden panic 47 on where the article dropped had not been fastened to the premises and might have been so dropped by a stranger.48
motion picture theatre. The court held that it was error to charge that the burden was on defendant to show freedom from negligence rather than on plaintiff to show negligence.
46 Currier v. Henderson (1895), 85 Hun (N. Y.), 300; 32 N. Y. Supp. 953. Defendant was held liable for injuries received byplaintiff by the fall of a batten from the flies in defendant’s theatre.
Schnizer v. Phillips (1905), 108 A. D. (N. Y.) 17; 95 N. Y. Supp. 478; Fox v. Buffalo Park (1897), 21 A. D. (N. Y.) 321; 47 N. Y. Supp. 788; aff’d 136 N. Y. 559; 57 N. E. 1109; Abromowilzw. Tenzer (1911), 144 A. D. (N. Y.) 170; 128 N. Y. Supp. 951; Lusk v. Peck (1909), 132 A. D.
(N. Y.) 426; 116 N. Y. Supp. 1051; aff’d 199 N. Y. 546; 93 N. E. 377.
47 King v. Ringling (1910), 145 Mo. App. 285; 130 S. W. 482. Plaintiff was injured by falling of a board at defendant’s circus, during a panic caused by a windstorm. Held defendant not liable as no evidence was brought out showing that defendant was guilty of a breach of any duty owing to plaintiff.
48 Williams v. Mineral C. P. A. (1905),. 128 Iowa, 32; 102 N. W. 783; 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 427. While seated below a grand stand in a park where races were being held, a bottle was dropped upon plaintiff. Held that as reasonable care was the measure of duty, the charge was correct and the