Camp v. Rex, Inc.

• Citation: 304 Mass. 484,24 N.E.2d 4
• Parties: CAMP v. REX, Inc. (two cases).
• Decision Date: 06 December 1939
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

304 Mass. 484

24 N.E.2d 4

CAMP

v.REX, Inc. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Dec. 6, 1939.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; F. B. Greenhalge, Judge.

Actions by Alvina Camp and by Samuel Camp against Rex, Incorporated, for injuries sustained when a chair tipped while Alvina Camp was attempting to reach the aisle during a commotion at a wrestling exhibition at defendant's hall. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant brings exceptions to the denial of its motions for directed verdicts.

Exceptions overruled.M. J. Cohen and P. Harold Ready, both of Lowell, for plaintiffs.

D. E. Murphy and W. A. Ryan, both of Boston, for defendant.

RONAN, Justice.

The plaintiff in the first case, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, with three other companions had attended a wrestling exhibition at the defendant's hall, occupying a seat in either the first or the second row from the ring and five seats in from the aisle. Five or six hundred people attended the exhibition. At the conclusion of the last contest a dispute arose in the ring between the contestants and the referee, and a crowd quickly collected about the ring to witness the fracas. The plaintiff was preparing to leave her seat, when the crowd surged back from the ring to avoid being hurt when it appeared that one contestant was about to throw his opponent out of the ring. The plaintiff was so badly crowded that she got up on the seat in which she had been sitting and intended to walk upon the other four seats to reach the aisle and escape from the commotion, but the movement of the crowd caused the chair upon which she was walking to tip backwards, precipitating her to the floor. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and for her husband, the plaintiff in the second case, and the cases are here upon the defendant's exceptions to the denial of its motions for directed verdicts.

The department of public safety had duly established rules and regulations relative to the equipment of public halls, one of which (section 10), referring to auditorium seating, in so far as material, provided that ‘For audience halls using portable seats, floor cleats or other approved device for securing the seats in place shall be used.’ The commissioner of public safety in accordance with G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 143, § 34, had issued to the defendant a license to use its premises as a public hall upon certain conditions set forth in the license, one of which was that ‘all seats in the audience hall and galleries shall be securely fastened to the floor or otherwise secured in place.’

The defendant contends that the department of public safety had no authority to regulate the use of portable chairs in a public assembly hall, and, if it did, that the only purpose of such a rule was to protect the public in case of fire and that the regulation was inapplicable to a case where one was attempting to escape from a crowd. Landers v. Brooks, 258 Mass. 1, 154 N.E. 265, 49 A.L.R. 562,Aldworth v. F. W. Woolworth Co., Mass., 3 N.E.2d 1008.

The commissioner was expressly required, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 143, § 54, to issue regulations necessary for the uniform enforcement of sections 15 to 52 of this chapter. Some of these sections do not relate to fire hazards and the chapter itself aims to furnish adequate protection to the public in the use of buildings to which they resort. Of course, fire is one of the principal dangers to be averted, but the chapter is also concerned with various other matters which must be regulated and controlled in the public interest. We need not, however, determine the validity of the regulation as it does not go so far as the condition contained in the defendant's license that plainly requires all seats to be securely fastened to the floor or otherwise secured. We assume in favor of the defendant that the holder of a license, which he voluntarily sought and secured and which regulates the use of his property, can attack a provision of his license upon the ground that it is unauthorized by law. See Burgess v. Mayor & Aldermen of Brockton, 235 Mass. 95, 126 N.E. 456;Morley v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 261 Mass. 269, 159 N.E. 41.

The commissioner of public safety is authorized to grant licenses for public halls located outside of Boston, and he ‘may require such changes in the structural or other condition of any building before issuing any license as in his opinion the public safety requires' provided such changes shall not be in excess of the requirements for a new building. G. L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 143, § 34. A licensee is responsible for noncompliance with the terms of his license. G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 143, § 35. Inspectors of the division of inspection of the department of public safety must report violations of the conditions of a license and upon the failure of the licensee to comply with such conditions, the license shall be revoked. G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 143, § 38. No building shall be used as a public hall until a license therefor, or a certificate from an inspector, has been issued, and such use without a license or certificate or in violation of the conditions of a license is punishable by fine or imprisonment and the revocation of the license, if one has been granted. G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 143, § 52. These sections recognize the fact that licenses for public halls may containconditions in accordance with which the use of the hall is permitted. It would be difficult to enact legislation in such detail as to govern specifically each and every instance presented in licensing the use as a public hall of structures varying widely in structural strength, materials, shape, size, exits, surrounding property and divers other...