Couris v. Casco Amusement Corp.
Decision Date | 28 March 1956 |
Citation | 133 N.E.2d 250,333 Mass. 740 |
Parties | Theodore COURIS v. CASCO AMUSEMENT CORP. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James A. Liacos, Peabody, for plaintiff.
Frank M. Lewis, Boston, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received on November 25, 1951, in Peabody when a seat in a theatre maintained and operated by the defendant collapsed. There was evidence that while the plaintiff, who was a ticket holder, was 'watching the show,' the seat in which he was sitting 'suddenly collapsed,' and he fell to the floor. A bolt which had come out of the seat was later found. The seat was one of the five hundred or six hundred wooden seats which were provided for patrons. '[C]hildren would come into the theatre building sometimes to play and break the seats.' On this evidence, which was all that was offered by the plaintiff on liability, the defendant rested. Its motion for a directed verdict was denied subject to its exception. A verdict for the plaintiff was returned and recorded under leave reserved to enter a verdict for the defendant. Thereafter the defendant filed a 'motion for judgment in accordance with leave reserved' which the judge allowed. The plaintiff then excepted.
The defendant owed to the plaintiff, a business visitor, the duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the seat which he was expected to occupy in a reasonably safe condition. Hale v. McLaughlin, 274 Mass. 308, 174 N.E. 506; Keenan v. E. M. Loew's, Inc., 302 Mass. 309, 311, 19 N.E.2d 37. As the plaintiff offered no evidence as to the cause of the seat's collapse, the question for decision is whether under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur evidence of the collapse was in the circumstances sufficient to warrant a finding of the defendant's negligence. This doctrine is a rule of evidence which applies where the direct cause of the accident and so much of the circumstances as were essential to its occurrence were within the sole control of the defendant, Wilson v. Colonial Air Transport, Inc., 278 Mass. 420, 425, 180 N.E. 212, 83 A.L.R. 329, and permits the fact finding tribunal to infer from the occurrence itself that in the light of ordinary experience the accident would not have happened unless the defendant had been negligent. Graham v. Badger, 164 Mass. 42, 47, 41 N.E. 61; Beattie v. Boston Elevator Railway Co., 201 Mass. 3, 6, 86 N.E. 920; Roscigno v. Colonial Beacon Oil Co., 294 Mass. 234, 235, 200 N.E. 883.
The principle has been applied in cases involving the unexplained derailment of a railway car, Gilchrist v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 272 Mass. 346, 351, 172 N.E. 349, and cases cited, the extraordinary lurch of a public conveyance, Convery v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Co., 252 Mass. 418, 421, 147 N.E. 824, and cases cited, and the fall of an object from the defendant's premises, Melvin v. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 180 Mass. 196, 62 N.E. 379; McNichols v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 196 Mass. 138, 81 N.E. 889. See cases cited in Knych v. Trustees of New York, New...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Honeywell, Inc.
...Mass. 386, 391, 145 N.E.2d 828 (1957); DiRoberto v. Lagasse, 336 Mass. 309, 310-11, 145 N.E.2d 834 (1957); Couris v. Casco Amusement Corp., 333 Mass. 740, 133 N.E.2d 250 (1956); Cushing v. Jolles, 292 Mass. 72, 74, 197 N.E. 466 (1935); Callahan v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 216 Mass. 334,......
-
Calvanese v. W. W. Babcock Co., Inc.
...(1913)), a chain (Cushing v. G.W. & F. Smith Iron Co., 194 Mass. 310, 80 N.E. 596 (1907)), a theatre seat (Couris v. Casco Amusement Corp., 333 Mass. 740, 133 N.E.2d 250 (1956)), and a staging (Rice v. DeAvilla, 338 Mass. 793, 155 N.E.2d 768 (1959))-all of which were held sufficient to rais......
-
Sweet v. Swangel
...65, 394 P.2d 809 (swivel chair); Rose v. Melody Lane of Wilshire, 39 Cal.2d 481, 247 P.2d 335 (bar stool); Couris v. Casco Amusement Corp., 333 Mass. 740, 133 N.E.2d 250 (theatre seat); Herries v. Bond Stores, 231 Mo.App. 1053, 84 S.W.2d 153 (chair furnished store patron by salesman); Nowne......
- Com. v. Kennedy