Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp..., 21.
| Citation | 43 A.2d 828,133 N.J.L. 218 |
| Decision Date | 13 September 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 21.,21. |
| Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. ESSEX AMUSEMENT CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Abbie Williams and Henry Williams, her husband, against Essex Amusement Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of New Jersey, for injuries sustained by plaintiff Abbie Williams in defendant's moving picture theater and consequential damages by her husband. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Passaic County.
May term, 1945, before BROGAN, C. J., and PARKER and OLIPHANT, JJ.
David Cohn, of Paterson, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Wilbur A. Stevens, of Newark, for defendant-appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Passaic County Circuit Court upon a verdict by a jury in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. It is based upon three grounds: First, that the trial court erred in its refusal to grant a motion made on the part of the defendant for a non-suit; secondly, that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a motion by the defendant for a directed verdict; thirdly, that the trial court erred in refusing to charge defendant's request on contributory negligence.
The suit was for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Abbie Williams in the moving picture theatre of the defendant in the City of Paterson, and consequential damages incurred by her husband, Henry Williams.
On the day of the alleged occurrence plaintiff entered the theatre accompanied by her son. The evidence does not disclose his age but apparently he was at least eighteen or nineteen. After purchasing tickets, they proceeded up two flights of stairs to the balcony. The picture was being shown and the theatre was darkened. Plaintiff's proofs were to the effect that in the lobby of the theatre there was a large number of youngsters, noisy and milling about. As plaintiff proceeded up the stairway there were also youngsters running up the stairs leading to the balcony. No usher was in the balcony. Defendant's evidence was that the youngsters were not boisterous, noisy or creating any kind of a disturbance and that there was a boy, a theatre employee, in the balcony. Plaintiff took three steps from the top of the landing in the balcony, to proceed to a seat, when she was knocked off her feet by the action and conduct of some of the youngsters in rushing to procure seats for themselves.
One of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark
...operation open to the public to protect his guest from the predictable behavior of other guests. In Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828 (Sup.Ct.1945), plaintiff, attending a crowded theatre, was unintentionally floored by a running boy. There was no usher resent. ......
-
Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
...& Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 539, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), aff'd. 108 N.J.L. 203 (E. & A. 1931); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 219 (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 424 (App. Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J......
-
Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, A--653
...for the jury to determine whether the supervision here furnished comported with this obligation. Compare Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828 (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., I......
-
Nigido v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore
...383 Ill. 366, 50 N.E.2d 497 (1943); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 88 A.2d 630 (1952); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828 (1945); Exton v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486 (1899); McLeod v. Grant County School Dist. No. ......