East Texas Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge
| Citation | 453 S.W.2d 466 |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. B--1810,B--1810 |
| Parties | EAST TEXAS THEATRES, INC., Petitioner, v. James C. RUTLEDGE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Ramey, Brelsford, Flock, Devereux & Hutchins, Tracy Crawford and Mike A. Hatchell, Tyler, for petitioner.
Jones, Jones & Baldwin, Scott Baldwin and Doyle Curry, Marshall, for respondents.
This is a damage suit alleging personal injuries were sustained by Sheila Rutledge, on or about September 25, 1966, while attending a midnight movie in a theatre owned and operated by East Texas Theatres, Inc. Subsequent to the date of the alleged injury, Sheila married Roy Voyles. The suit was brought by Sheila, joined by her husband, against East Texas Theatres, Inc. alleging that certain acts of negligence on the part of the theatre were a proximate cause of the injuries Sheila sustained while a patron of the theatre. The parties shall be designated as plaintiffs and defendant or by name. The jury found the defendant guilty of negligence in failing to remove certain unidentified 'rowdy persons' from the theatre and that such negligence was a proximate cause of Sheila's injuries. Damages were assessed by the jury at $31,250.00. Based upon the jury findings, the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed. 445 S.W.2d 538. We reverse the judgments of both courts and here render judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing.
The defendant presents two major questions for our decision: (1) the error of the Court of Civil Appeals in holding that there was any probative evidence of record to support the jury finding on proximate cause, and (2) the error of the Court of Civil Appeals in holding that the testimony was sufficient to prove a causal connection between the injuries alleged to have been sustained by Sheila and her subsequent complaints of chronic headache, etc. In view of our holding on the first question, it is unnecessary to pass upon the second.
A full and detailed discussion of the evidence bearing on the first question is to be found in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. We briefly summarize the facts. In taking this course, we are mindful of the rule that in deciding whether there is evidence in the record in support of the jury findings, we are required to view the evidence in its most favorable light in support of the verdict. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. McCleery, 418 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Sup.1967); Biggers v. Continental Bus System, 157 Tex. 351, 298 S.W.2d 79, 303 S.W.2d 359 (1957).
On September 24 and the early morning of September 25, 1966, Sheila, a paying guest, was attending a special 'midnight show' at the Paramount Theatre, one of the several theatres owned by the defendant. The interior of the theatre was arranged with a lower floor and a balcony for the seating of patrons. Sheila and her friends took seats on the lower floor in the left section close to an aisle which ran parallel with the left wall and out beyond the overhang of the balcony. When the picture came to an end, Sheila started making her exit, after the lights were turned on, using the aisle between the left section and the wall. As she proceeded up the aisle toward the front of the building for the purpose of leaving the theatre and just before she walked under the balcony overhang, some unidentified person in the balcony threw a bottle which struck her on the side of her head just above her left ear.
Since the jury found that the patrons in the balcony were acting in a 'rowdy' manner and that the defendant, its agents, servants and employees, negligently failed to remove such rowdy persons from the premises and that such negligence proximately caused the injuries sustained by Sheila, we deem it important to particularly point out the evidence bearing on the conduct of the patrons during the evening. The evidence favorable to the verdict is that during the progress of the show, the patrons in the theatre, both on the lower floor and in the balcony, were engaged in 'hollering.' Sheila, in describing the 'hollering,' said that 'a few slang words' were used. This 'hollering' was intermittent; it occurred 'off and on' during 'parts of' the movie. One witness testified that '* * * they would holler and maybe slack off a few minutes and then holler again.' Buddy Henderson testified that he saw paper or cold drink cups either 'drafting down' or being thrown down toward the front of the theatre. Sheila did not see throwing of any type. Henderson testified that he did not recall anything drifting down or being thrown down other than the paper cold drink cups. In regard to the duration of the commotion in the theatre, the evidence shows that there was more commotion on the lower floor than in the balcony. Henderson testified that he thought that the 'hollering' seemed to get worse toward the end of the show. Sheila was certain that '* * * (a)bout 30 minutes before the show was over it seemed to be quieter; they didn't seem to be as rowdy then.' Sheila, Henderson and an officer by the name of Burt, all agreed in their testimony that before the show was over, and, thus, before the accident, all commotion in the theatre had ceased. The last disturbance of any kind before the show was over was not throwing but 'hollering.' Henderson further testified that nothing happened, whether 'hollering' or the throwing of paper cups, to make him think that something bad was going to happen; he was not worried about the safety of himself or the safety of his friends or anybody that was there.
The balcony, which would seat 263 people, was 'just about full.' The witness, Burt, estimated that about 175 of the balcony seats were occupied. The disturbance in the balcony seemed to come from the balcony generally, 'just all over it.' The evidence does not identify any particular person as being a 'rowdy person.' No witness could state which persons in the balcony were rowdy and which were not. No witness could identify the person who threw the bottle. Incidentally, there is no evidence that a hard substance of any character was thrown, other than the bottle which struck Sheila. The witness, Henderson, testified that he could not identify the person who threw the bottle, but that out of the corner of his eye, he saw a 'movement, a jerking motion' by someone in the balcony and then saw the bottle hit Sheila. No witness testified that the bottle thrower had been engaged in 'hollering' or throwing paper cups. The jury found that Sheila's injuries were not solely caused by the action of 'some unknown person who threw a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith
...after being notified. In concluding that the evidence of causation was legally insufficient, JUSTICE JOHNSON relies on East Texas Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge.47 In that case, we held that the causation evidence was legally insufficient where a movie theater patron was injured by a bottle thr......
-
Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc.
...that Mullens's presence at the club was not due to breach of any duty to screen or to investigate. See East Tex. Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge, 453 S.W.2d 466, 468-69 (Tex.1970) (finding no cause in fact because no evidence established that, had a theater operator removed "rowdy persons" from ......
-
Haynes & Boone v. Bowser Bouldin, Ltd., 04-91-00555-CV
...and inferences to the contrary. McKnight v. Hill & Hill Exterminators, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 206, 207 (Tex.1985); East Texas Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge, 453 S.W.2d 466, 467 (Tex.1970). The point must be sustained if there is a complete absence of, or no more than a scintilla of evidence which su......
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. American Statesman
...two elements: (1) cause in fact, and (2) foreseeability. Farley v. M. M. Cattle Co., 529 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.1975); East Texas Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge, 453 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.1970); Biggers v. Continental Bus System, Inc., 157 Tex. 351, 303 S.W.2d 359 (1957). Both elements must be present. Clar......