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.
HURT BY TERFORMER
319
In one case fire broke out in the defendant’s circus, and plaintiff was injured. Defendant’s liability was rested upon his failure to supply fire extinguishers.64
From the foregoing cases the rule might be adduced that the proprietor of a theatre or other place of amusement is bound to anticipate the gathering of great crowds, and he is in duty bound to make some suitable provision for their safe entry and exit, their disposal, and for the common emergencies that may arise, such as fire and panic.65
Section 99. — Hurt by performer.
The proprietor of a theatre is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding the audience from injury
eight years, met his death under a platform erected by and under the charge of the defendant’s managers in the midst of fair grounds. The surging of the crowd caused the platform to collapse. Held that barriers should have been placed, as children might have been expected to go into this space. That reasonable diligence and caution was the measure of defendant’s duty. (See: Van Cleef v. Chicago, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 642.)
64 Griswold v. Ringling (1915), 165 A. D. (N. Y.) 737; 150 N. Y. Supp. 1022. It was held that the question of negligence was for the jury in a case where a spec
tator of a circus was injured in endeavoring to get out upon the breaking out of fire in the tent and the defendant failed to have chemical extinguishers therein.
65 Edwards v. N. Y. & H. R. R. (1885), 98 N. Y. 245. Defendant had leased Gilmore’s Gardens to one Kelley, who was to make all alterations. Kelley permitted a large crowd to enter upon a gallery, and as a result of the overcrowded condition and the stamping of the people, the gallery fell, injuring plaintiff.
By a divided court, four to three, the defendant was held not liable. Ch. J. Ruger writing a long dissenting opinion in which