Boxoffice (Oct-Dec 1963)

I The Legal Angle — I i i ADEQUATE LIGHTING MAY LIGHTEN LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES &S3M. By NORMAN SHIGON* T here have been a number of awards for damages rendered to claimants upon the theory that the owner or proprietor of a theatre did not properly or adequately mark or light a step causing the patron to sustain injuries as a result by falling over a single-step change in the grade or floor level in or adjoining toilet or restroom facilities. In one case, Fox Tucson Theatres Corp. vs. Lindsay, 47 Ariz., 388, 56 P. 2d 183 (1936) , it was held to be a question for the jury as to whether lighting conditions were sufficient or reasonably safe for a patron’s use, when the patron claimed to have sustained personal injuries as a result of falling down three or four steps leading from a lavatory to the lounge in a theatre. The lavatory did have several lights and several signs illuminating the conditions in the area. However, the court held that the question as to whether the lighting conditions were sufficient to be reasonably safe for a patron’s use was a jury question so that a verdict awarded to an injured plaintiff was affirmed. It was held that evidence as to the absence of previous accidents in the area was irrelevant since it might introduce collateral issues not bearing directly upon the main issue in the case. In addition, the court held that the fact that the plaintiff had fallen down did not necessarily mean that she failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety. QUESTION OF A WARNING SIGN In another case. Buck vs. Miller Amusement Co., 166 Kan., 205, 200 P. 2d 286 (1948), a verdict for the plaintiff was upheld and affirmed by the appellate court, which gave recognition to the fact that the question as to whether there should or should not have been a warning sign upon a door leading to the restroom in the defendant’s theatre that there was was a stepdown was a question for the jury. The evidence in the case indicated that the door was hinged on the right and had a knob on the left. There was a drop or step-down of five or six inches inside the lavatory and this step-down led to another platform. There was a sign apparently inside the lavatory indicating that there was a “stepdown.” The fact that a plaintiff sustained injuries from fa ng down a dimly lighted step which led . om a foyer to the restroom ’Attorney ot Law, Philadelphia. was held to present a question for a jury in Vale vs. Indiana County Theatres Co., 120 P. 2d 495 (C.A. 3 Pa., 1941). The question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was also held to be a jury question. In another case, where the evidence indicated that there were no warning signs in the toilet room or in the corridor, and shadows on the floor near the door of the restroom, and the floors of both the corridor and the restroom were the same color, the door sill being a slightly different shade, the court in Trame vs. Orpheum Theatre Co., 60 Ohio App. 323, 13 Ohio Ops. 66, 27 Ohio L. Aps. 645, 21 N.E. 2d 178 (1938) held that a verdict for the plaintiff should be affirmed where the plaintiff, not aware of a six-and-one-half-inch step-down between the corridor and the lavatory or restrooms, was injured when she stepped out of a toilet room in defendant’s theatre into the corridor. CONSTRUCTION A FACTOR In addition, in that case, the court held it to be proper to permit expert testimony as to the design, planning and construction of the corridor and the toilet room since the architectural layout or design was held not to be one of common or general knowledge. It was held not to be an invasion of the province of the jury upon the ultimate issue of fact to permit an expert witness to answer a hypothetical question as to whether the corridor and the toilet room were constructed in a reasonable and proper manner, since the witness was not asked whether the defendant was negligent and the jury was not bound to award a verdict to the plaintiff even if it agreed with the answer of the witness to the effect that the construction was not reasonable or proper, since the jury could still have found that the defendant had exercised reasonable care. The maintenance of a six-inch stepdown from a women’s restroom to a hallway in a theatre, although there was sufficient light in the hallway for a person with average vision to see the step, was held to present a jury question in Wright vs. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc. (C.A. 5 La., 1952), 198 F. 2d 303 since there was no warning sign or similar notice on Pictorial Section Credits Manufacturers’ credits related to the pictures shown in the following pictorial section may be found on page 64. Complete credits will be given with publication of the individual theatre stories. or about the door calling attention to the presence of the step-down. In addition, the court held that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence in failing to see the step-down, although the testimony indicated that there was sufficient light in the area for a person with average vision to see the step. The court held that since there was no warning of any kind as to the presence of a step, and since a person in a place of amusement such as the theatre had a right to assume the premises were safe, the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence since the plaintiff did not have an obligation to seek out lurking or hidden dangers. In another case, Simpson vs. Doe, 39 Wash., 2d 934, 239 P. 2d 1051 (1952) the court held that an injured plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and that a verdict by the jury should be affirmed. The court indicated that many factors have to be considered in such a case. The court indicated that whether or not a person was under an obligation to remember a particular hazard, such as the presence or absence of a step-down from a ladies room to a lounge in a motion picture theatre depended upon numerous factors, including opportunities for distraction, peculiarities of construction, furnishings and light, the length of time elapsing before the way is retraced and other matters. FAILED TO RECALL STEP Under such circumstances, where the evidence in this case indicated the plaintiff had climbed a stairway in a theatre to the lounge, had traversed the lounge, climbed a single step into the toilet room and had spent a few minutes there, had momentarily hesitated upon opening the door between the rooms, had not recalled the step and had fallen down when she stepped forward into the lounge, it was held a jury question as to both whether the proprietor of the establishment was negligent and as to whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The court pointed out that the experience of climbing or mounting the stairway to the lounge which was the factor which might have distracted the plaintiff and excused her from remembering the single step between the rooms. The defendant, in this particular case, did not fight the verdict upon the issue of primary negligence since the testimony indicated that there was a step five inches high between the floors of the lounge and the toilet room, the step being flush with the door. IMPROPER LIGHTING IN LOUNGE While the toilet room was well lit, the lounge was dimly illuminated by a single floor lamp in a corner which cast a glaring light at the ceiling so that one could not read in the adjacent area. The area of the lounge was approximately eight and onehalf feet by 17 feet. When the door was open, additional light was reflected into the lounge but this light would be obscured by the plaintiff’s figure in the doorway. The court indicated that the difference in the floor levels was a deceptive condition which was overwhelmingly established by the evidence, and that the plaintiff could not be held contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Continued on page 34 18 The MODERN THEATRE SECTION