Exhibitors Herald and Moving Picture World (Oct-Dec 1928)

68 amount of labor or material shall be furnished." * * * Proprietor Legally Bound To Inspect Premises Generally speaking, a theatre owner is expected by law to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition to avoid injury to patrons. Sometimes the defect causing the injury is sufficiently apparent to justify the assumption of a Court that the theatre owner is negligent in failing to exercise required legal care to observe the defect. For illustration, in Bleisch v. Helfrich, 6 S. W. (2d) 978, it was disclosed that a woman stepped backwards against a banister which was over a flight of steps, and due to the pressure applied against it, the banister gave way, causing her to fall upon the landing below. The proprietor attempted to avoid liability upon the grounds that the woman had knowledge of the unsafe condition of the banister, and that her injuries had resulted from her own act in leaning against the same, and furthermore, that the former's attention had not been directed to the defective condition of the banister. However, in view of the fact that testimony was introduced proving that the defective condition of the banister would have been observed by inspection, the Court held the woman entitled to damages, saying: "The steps alongside of which the banister had been constructed were of common use to the plaintiff. The only issue in the case is whether the evidence was such as to make the inference reasonably and fairly deducible that defendant, (proprietor) in the exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered the defective condition of the banister in time to have repaired or replaced it prior to the occasion of plaintiff's misfortune The common experience of mankind teaches us that the deterioration of the wood must have extended over a very considerable period of time; and, in view of the fact that the decay was most noticeable on the upper or exposed part of the banister, and that the condition of the same was such that, when pressure was applied against it, the wood pulled away from the nails and crumbled into several pieces, it would clearly appear that the jury, as reasonable men, might properly have found an ordinarily careful inspection would have revealed the defect in the banister in ample time for repairs to have been made before the occasion of plaintiff's injury." * * * Contractor Not Responsible For Injury to Workman Generally speaking, a theatre owner is not liable for injuries sustained by a contractor, who is repairing or building a theatre, unless convincing evidence is introduced to prove that the theatre owner, or the theatre employee, or the contractor's negligence caused the injury. For instance, in Crombie v. Iinmel Const. Co., 220 N. W. 186, it was shown that the Immel Construction Company was the principal contractor engaged in the construction of the Capitol Theatre building. A man named Crombie was superintendent SPECIAL The Junior D. K. Automatic Curtain Control NOW NOW #175.00 -Scenic Studios TLtTIN.OIIIO Complete Stage Equipment Catalogue Upon Rrquett BETTER THEATRES SECTION OF Closeup of fountain in Regal theatre in London. for a subcontractor who had a contract to install the steel work. One day while Crombie was standing in an alley, adjacent to the building, directing the operations of a derrick used for raising the steel to its proper position in the building, a brick fell from the fifth floor of the building, striking him on the head, causing serious injury. He sued the theatre owner contending that one of the principal contractor's employees carelessly and negligently permitted a number of bricks to become detached from the wall. During the trial evidence was introduced tending to prove that a large canvas had been fastened to the side of the building, extending from one of the floors to the ceiling above. This canvas was held in place by wooden cleats fastened with eightpenny nails. At the time of the accident, a very high wind was blowing, and the canvas became unfastened, and, while whipping back and forth in the wind, caught several bricks which had been piled near the edge of the building, throwing them to the ground, one of which struck Crombie. Programs prepared by us get the public interested in your shows. Let uj send you torn* lampUi. THE NATIONAL PROGRAM » PRINTING OO. 729 So W.baah Av«. Chi cm* December 22, 1928 Since the accident resulting in this manner was not directly the fault of either the contractor employed to construct the theatre, or any employee of the theatre owner, the Court held the latter not liable in damages. * * * Statute Forbidding Transportation Of Prize Fight Films Does Not Prevent Exhibition Since, at various times, considerable controversy has arisen with repect to the law preventing transportation of prize fight films, the recent United States Court case, Rose v. St. Clair 28 F. (2d) 189, imparts valuable information. In this case, it was disclosed that a theatre proprietor gave an exhibition at a theatre in Virginia of the films of the Tunney-Dempsey prize fight held in Chicago. After the first exhibition, the marshal of the city seized the films upon the grounds that the theatre proprietor had committed felony in unlawfully violating the Criminal Code of the United States which prohibits the importation and the interstate transportation of films and other pictorial representations of prize fights. The marshal did not arrest the theatre owner on the charge of transporting the films, but sought to prevent the exhibition of these films in the theatre. The United States law, upon which the prosecution was based reads as follows: * * * "That it shall be unlawful for any person to deposit or cause to be deposited in the United States mails for mailing or delivery; or to deposit or cause to be deposited with any express company or other common carrier for carriage ; or to send or carry from one state .... to any other state . . . any film . . . of any prize fight .... which is designed to be used for purposes of public exhibition." * * * The theatre proprietor brought suit against the deputy marshal to recover the films and exhibit them, as he had advertised he would do. It is interesting to observe that the Court held that this theatre proprietor did not violate this Act, by exhibition of the films and that the seizure was unjustified. In holding that the films must be returned to the proprietor, the Court stated the law on the subject, in the following language: * * * "Congress has never attempted to forbid the exhibition of pictures of prize fights, and, as the exhibition was not an act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, the use of the films in giving the exhibition is in this case without legal significance. The exhibition was merely an act (not declared to be a crime) done after the object of the conspiracy had been fully accomplished The statute was intended to make it an offense to transport films of prize fights from one state to another; but it was not intended to make it an offense to give public exhibitions of films which had been transported in violation of the act of 1912. And the effort of the government throughout this proceeding has been to prevent the doing of an act which Congress has not attempted to forbid. An expectation that the act of 1912 would have the effect of obstructing and of largely preventing public exhibitions of pictures of prize fights, and an intent to declare such exhibitions to be offenses against the United States, arc widely different ; and the Courts are not justified in confusing an expectation as to the practical effect of a statute with the command of the statute. While it has been decided that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce, as was done by the act of 1912 .... there is at least room for doubt as to the constitutional power of Congress to forbid the public exhibition of pictures of prize fights in the states, and as Congress has most distinctly refrnined from attempting to forbid such exhibitions, the Courts cannot read into the statute an intent to prohibit such exhibitions." * * * While it is true that any person is liable in damages for losses sustained by another for fraudulent statements of the former, yet it is well settled that the complaining party must introduce convincing testimony to prove the alleged fraud. 1