Earle v. Colonial Theatre Co., Docket Nos. 30195

• Decision Date: 20 March 1978
• Docket Number: 30196,Docket Nos. 30195
• Citation: 266 N.W.2d 466,82 Mich.App. 54
• Parties: Steven EARLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLONIAL THEATRE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Steven EARLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIDWEST THEATRES COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. 82 Mich.App. 54, 266 N.W.2d 466
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 466

266 N.W.2d 466

Steven EARLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLONIAL THEATRE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant.

Steven EARLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIDWEST THEATRES COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 30195, 30196.

82 Mich.App. 54, 266 N.W.2d 466

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 20, 1978.

Released for Publication June 14, 1978.

[82 MICHAPP 55] Seth H. Barsky, Southfield, for defendant-appellant.

August, Thompson, Sherr & Miller, P.C. by Paul D. Sherr, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WALSH, P. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and BEASLEY, JJ.

BEASLEY, Judge.

On August 23, 1972, while a patron in the now closed Colonial Theatre on the edge of downtown Detroit, plaintiff was shot in the right ear in an unprovoked attack by a stranger. ¹ Although suffering serious injury and loss of hearing in one ear, plaintiff recovered and sued defendant for damages, claiming defendant did not exercise reasonable care for his safety. Specifically, plaintiff offered evidence of previous criminal activity in or about the theatre and asserted defendants were thus placed on notice of an unreasonable risk of harm to patrons which imposed a duty on defendants[82 MICHAPP 56] to maintain armed security guards for the safety of paying patrons. ²

The jury returned a verdict of $40,000 for plaintiff. Defendants appeal as of right.

Defendants say that while crime has, unfortunately, become such a way of life as to be generally foreseeable, this does not mean that all businesses have a duty to hire armed guards to protect customers. Defendants say this Court should determine, as a matter of law, that defendants had no duty to maintain armed guards.

In this connection, defendants urge that we consider the economic effect of a holding (albeit by jury verdict) that businesses in high crime areas have a duty to maintain armed guards to secure the safety of patrons and other business invitees. We are not only mindful of this economic effect, but we also are aware that "high crime areas" exist not only in the large cities, but also in the suburbs and many medium-sized cities throughout the state.

Nevertheless, it is also clear that defendants, in conducting their business, undertook certain duties regarding business invitees. ³ Among other things, the court instructed the jury as follows:

"Now, in considering whether there was an act of negligence, the law provides that when a person is invited on the premises of a business he is a business invitee, and the person doing the inviting has a certain duty to that individual. That duty is, in this state, to use reasonable care for the safety of that person. Now, [82 MICHAPP 57] it is going to be up to you to determine what are the requirements of using reasonable care for the safety of the Plaintiff * * *."

As stated by the court, once such a duty is established, it is for the jury to determine the specific standard of care applicable. ⁴ In this case, presumably the jury did determine the specific standard of care required of this theatre owner. Under present law, that determination must be affirmed. In addition, we find no error in the denial of defendants' motion for a directed verdict since that motion was also grounded upon a request that the trial court decide questions which, as has already been discussed, were properly for the jury.

In their brief on appeal, defendants do not zero in and specify what the trial judge did or did not do that constituted allegedly reversible error. We assume that the thrust of defendants' argument is directed toward the court's instructions to the jury.

Consequently, we have reviewed the court's instruction to the jury. The instruction consisted of the Standard Jury Instruction, approved and required by order of the Supreme Court, ⁵ as amplified by requests of the parties. No objection was made by defendants with respect to the court's definition of negligence, due care, duties or proximate cause. In the absence of any objection to the court's charge to the jury, we only review upon a showing of manifest injustice; none appears here. Therefore, insofar as defendants' claims on appeal [82 MICHAPP 58] rest on the jury instructions, they are without merit.

AFFIRMED, with costs.

V. J....