Boxoffice (Oct-Dec 1963)

THE LEGAL ANGLE Continued from page 18 The failure to have a louver light at or near a step between the mezzanine floor and the restroom floor and in addition the failure to have a warning sign was held to be a violation of the duty imposed upon the proprietor of a theatre in Helms vs. Fox Badger Theatres Corp., 253 Wis., 113, 33 N.W. 2d 210 (1948). Therefore, the testimony by experts as to the necessity and efficacy of a warning sign and a louver light in such a situation was held to support the verdict of the jury. In addition the testimony of the case indicated that the restroom was of white ceramic tile while the mezzanine floor was constructed of gray rubber or asphalt tile with a diamond or square pattern varying from light to dark. The restroom was lit by a white ceiling light of 75 or 100 watts located near the door while the mezzanine area was lit by a chrome-amber light of 40 watts located about five to seven feet from the door, and this small wattage light was apparently the only light in the area except from another white light located 12 feet away over a stairway. The illumination from the restroom was shaded by the door which opened inward toward the lavatory. POOR ILLUMINATION The court further found that the jury could be permitted to take into consideration, on the question of contributory negligence of the plaintiff-patron, that she was an old woman approximately 75 years of age and suffered from high blood pressure and senile dementia of long standing. In Wisconsin, at the time, juries were permitted to decide questions on the basis of comparative negligence, and it was held that a finding by the jury that 35 per cent of the cause of the injury was due to the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was amply supported by the evidence. INTENT UPON OBJECTIVE The court held, in another case, that a person entering a public toilet may well be intent and engrossed upon reaching the objective, especially when accompanied by small children with pressing needs. Therefore, in Bunce vs. Grand and Sixth Building, 206 Wis., 100, 238 N.W. 67 (1931) a verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed when there came into issue in the case the location and construction of a step between two lines of stalls in the defendant’s toilet room in its theatre. The main issue in the case was the breach of the duty of the proprietor of the theatre under a safe place statute which was in force in Wisconsin. There was only a single ceiling light in the restroom, but this light apparently was sufficient to light that area. However, there was no light on the step and there was some conflicting expert testimony as to the propriety of the erection or construction of the step. The patron who was injured had fallen over the step when she was taking her two small grandchildren to the toilet. The court found as a fact that the jury could consider that the location of the step was dangerous if its presence would not be reasonably anticipated by theatre patrons. The law appears to be similar in situations where a person lawfully upon the premises has fallen down stairways in or near a restroom. Such an incident has usually been held to present a jury question. Facts which may be considered in arriving at a verdict include the illumination in the area, the construction or design of the area, and whether there are any warnings or warning signs given to the plaintiff so that the situation will not present a trap or a lurking danger to a patron. Painesville Eutopia Theatre Co. vs. Lautermilch, 118 Ohio St. 167, 160 N.E. 683 (1928) ; Dively vs. Penn-Pittsburgh Corp., 332 Pa. 65, 2 A. 2d 831 (1938). VARIOUS FACTORS INVOLVED Whether or not a patron is guilty of contributory negligence in such situations depends on numerous factors, and some of the facts which might control in a case of injury to persons lawfully upon the premises are the degree of darkness, the justification of the injured person’s presence in the place of danger, and whether the person was a business invitee or trespasser. As a rule of thumb, it might be said that both the questions of negligence of the theatre proprietor and contributory negligence on the part of the patron are generally held to be jury questions. Proper lighting, therefore, will not only help to illuminate the area of a lavatory, toilet or restroom, it may well lighten a theatre owner or operator’s liability to respond in damages. America's Finest Theatre Seating . . . Griggs No. 1050 PUSH-BACK Push\.Bcicfc America’s finest seating means Griggs Push Back the chair that makes the best appearance and provides maximum comfort with minimum maintenance problems. PUSH-BACKS mean happier patrons since they have not been unduly inconvenienced when others left or entered their seats. Passing space is created by merely pushing back in chair. Seats return to normal position automatically. No. 3100 INTERNATIONAL 1— Here's the nor 2— Seated patrons 3— Relax.chair slides mal, comfortable need not stand— a backtonormaI.comlounge-chair posi (remit movement of fortable position — tion of the Push-Back the body slides the no standing up, no Theatre Seat. seat back. inconvenience. Griggs International A sleek, durable line of theatre seating that is modestly priced. Long known for its comfortable styling, quality materials and sturdy construction, the International is backed by the unqualified Griggs guarantee. Griggs ] Griggs Equipment, 34 The MODERN THEATRE SECTION