43 A.2d 828 (N.J. 1945), 21, Williams v. Essex Amusement Corporation

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtOLIPHANT, J.
JudgeBefore BROGAN, CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices PARKER and OLIPHANT.
Citation133 N.J.L. 218,43 A.2d 828
PartiesABBIE WILLIAMS AND HENRY WILLIAMS, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ESSEX AMUSEMENT CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Docket Number21
Date12 September 1945

Page 828

43 A.2d 828 (N.J. 1945)

133 N.J.L. 218

ABBIE WILLIAMS AND HENRY WILLIAMS, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,

v.

ESSEX AMUSEMENT CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

No. 21

Supreme Court of New Jersey

September 12, 1945

Submitted May 1, 1945.

On appeal from the Passaic County Circuit Court.

For the plaintiffs-appellees, David Cohn.

For the defendant-appellant, Wilbur A. Stevens.

Before BROGAN, CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices PARKER and OLIPHANT.

OPINION

OLIPHANT, J.

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 nonsuit; 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 [133 N.J.L. 219] 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 charges in the complaint was defendant's failure to provide ushers and attendants to control the actions of a large number of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • 288 A.2d 127 (Md. 1972), 241, Nigido v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • March 9, 1972
    ...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, [264 Md. 707] 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486 (1899); McLeod v. Grant County School Dist.......
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...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., Inc.,......
  • 367 S.W.2d 481 (Tenn.App. 1962), Ford v. Brandan
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • December 4, 1962
    ...Quinn v. Smith, 5 Cir., 57 F.2d 784; Savannah Theatres Co. v. Brown, 36 Ga.App. 352, 136 S.W. 478; Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828; Hill v. Merrick, 147 Or. 244, 31 P.2d 668; Editorial Comment 16 A.L.R.2d 932; 1962 Supplement 52 Am.Jur. p. 297, Theaters and Sh......
  • 64 A.2d 219 (N.J. 1949), A-169, Braven v. Meyer Brothers
    • United States
    • New Jersey United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • February 28, 1949
    ...actionable negligence, Thurber v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 112 N.J.L. 385, 387 (Sup. Ct. 1933); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 219 (Sup. Ct. 1945). And the record is barren of any evidence indicating that the actions of the crowd, if there was a crowd, were out of the ord......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • 288 A.2d 127 (Md. 1972), 241, Nigido v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • March 9, 1972
    ...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, [264 Md. 707] 62 N.J.L. 7, 42 A. 486 (1899); McLeod v. Grant County School Dist.......
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...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., Inc.,......
  • 367 S.W.2d 481 (Tenn.App. 1962), Ford v. Brandan
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • December 4, 1962
    ...Quinn v. Smith, 5 Cir., 57 F.2d 784; Savannah Theatres Co. v. Brown, 36 Ga.App. 352, 136 S.W. 478; Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828; Hill v. Merrick, 147 Or. 244, 31 P.2d 668; Editorial Comment 16 A.L.R.2d 932; 1962 Supplement 52 Am.Jur. p. 297, Theaters and Sh......
  • 64 A.2d 219 (N.J. 1949), A-169, Braven v. Meyer Brothers
    • United States
    • New Jersey United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • February 28, 1949
    ...actionable negligence, Thurber v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 112 N.J.L. 385, 387 (Sup. Ct. 1933); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 219 (Sup. Ct. 1945). And the record is barren of any evidence indicating that the actions of the crowd, if there was a crowd, were out of the ord......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT