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.
318
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
prietor of the theatre was liable irrespective of whether he was negligent or not.
To this doctrine we cannot subscribe. We do not think that the case will stand.
Section 98. — Crowds.
It has been held negligence on the part of the theatre proprietor to so overcrowd his balcony as to cause the giving way of the rail.61 Narrow passageways, resulting in a jamming of the crowd, and injury to the plaintiff will* also make him liable, as it has been held to be the proximate cause of the injury.62 And a failure to guard the space under a platform which collapsed and killed a boy who had strayed underneath was sufficient to charge the defendant with liability.63
61 Weiner v. Scherer (1909), 64 Misc. (N. Y.) 82; 117 N. Y. Supp. 1008. Plaintiff while seated in the orchestra was injured by the giving way of a rail on the balcony, causing several people to fall upon him.
“The defendant must be assumed to have known the capacity of the balcony, and he had no right to permit it to become so overcrowded as to cause undue pressure upon the rail. The pressing forward of the people to view the performance was also to be expected, and that this would naturally be done by the standees should have been an
ticipated; and the admission of a much greater number of people than the balcony in ordinary use was intended to contain . . . made it a question for submission to the jury.”
62 Bole v. Pittsburgh A. C. (1913), 205 Fed. (C. C. A.) 468. Plaintiff was injured while attending a baseball game. Held that the proximate cause of the accident was the act of defendant in maintaining a narrow passageway, and judgment in defendant’s favor was reversed.
63 Murrell v. Smith (1910), 152 Mo. App. 95; 133 S. W. 76. Plaintiff’s intestate, a boy of