Allen v. Vogue Amusement Co.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1964 |
| Citation | 377 S.W.2d 805 |
| Parties | Samuel Louis ALLEN, who sues by his father and next friend, William E. Allen, Appellant, v. VOGUE AMUSEMENT COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Kentucky |
Fred J. Karem, Karem & Karem, Louisville, for appellant.
Louis N. Garlove, Morris & Garlove, Louisville, for appellees.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
Samuel Louis Allen, a 12-year-old boy, brought action by his father and next friend against the Vogue Amusement Company, two of its employes, and a merchant policeman, seeking damages for false imprisonment growing out of an accasion on which Samuel was detained at a movie theater of the Vogue Amusement Company by its employes with participation by the policeman, and damages for wrongful ejectment growing out of another occasion when Samuel was ejected from the theater. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants and judgment was entered accordingly. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment, claiming that he was entitled to a directed verdict on the false imprisonment claim and that prejudicial errors were committed on the trial in the admission of evidence.
The defendants' evidence warranted a finding that Samuel caused a disturbance in the theater; he was asked to leave and was escorted to the outside of the theater by an usher; he attempted to force his way back into the theater; the usher then took him into the manager's office where a call was made to the boy's mother; she asked that the boy be held until she could come for him; when she came for him he was permitted to leave with her. Under such a finding the initial restraint of the boy could be considered justifiable as a proper measure to protect the defendants' property from invasion and interference by the boy. See 22 Am.Jur., False Imprisonment, sec. 78, pp. 407, 408; 35 C.J.S. False Imprisonment Sec. 14, p. 640. And his subsequent detention was at the request of his parent. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict.
Damages were claimed on the theory that the boy had become nervous and upset, and rejective of adult authority, as a result of his detention at the theater. In cross-examination, after several questions relating to his nervous and upset condition, he was asked:
'Now, how about on Lexington Road, when you were arrested by some police officers with some older boys, did that make you nervous and upset?'
An objection was sustained to the question and the court not only directed the jury 'to disregard that statement altogether' but strongly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Executive Club, Ltd.
...35 C.J.S. False Imprisonment § 56(h); Nichols v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., D.C.App., 322 A.2d 283, 286 (1974); Allen v. Vogue Amusement Co., 377 S.W.2d 805 (Ky.1964). We also agree that, in some instances, character is an issue in a false arrest action where the plaintiff claims compensator......
-
Nichols v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.
...was relevant on the issue of damages, and hence that evidence thereof properly was admitted by the trial court .8 See Allen v. Vogue Amusement Co., 377 S.W.2d 805 (Ky.1964). There being no error requiring reversal, the judgment below is Affirmed. PAIR, Associate Judge, Retired (concurring):......
-
Daugherty v. Kuhn's Big K Store
...was only admissible "for the purpose of affecting the measure of damages," and for such purpose it was proper. In Allen v. Vogue Amusement Company, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 805 (1964), the appellant, a 12-year-old boy, alleged he was wrongfully detained by the appellee, which caused him to be "nervo......
-
Massey v. McKinley, 84-CA-2250-MR
...jail if he had been arrested and spent time in jail previously. To support his contention, the appellant relies on Allen v. Vogue Amusement Co., Ky., 377 S.W.2d 805 (1964), and Butcher v. Adams, 310 Ky. 205, 220 S.W.2d 398 In Butcher, supra, the operator of a tavern was arrested after the p......