Hollenbaek v. Clemmer

• Citation: 66 Wash. 565,119 P. 1114
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 12 January 1912
• Parties: HOLLENBAEK v. CLEMMER.

119 P. 1114

66 Wash. 565

HOLLENBAEK v. CLEMMER.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 12, 1912

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; John B. Yakey Judge.

Action by Mary L. Hollenbaek against J. H. Clemmer. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Harris Baldwin, for appellant.

Skuse &amp Morrill, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover for personal injuries. At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial court sustained defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and dismissed the action. Plaintiff has appealed.

It appears that on October 11, 1910, the respondent was conducting a moving picture show in the city of Spokane. The plaintiff and two other ladies purchased tickets, and entered the room where the pictures were being shown. The exhibition was in progress when they entered. The room was darkened. When they entered, an usher met them at the entrance, and conducted them to seats about two-thirds of the way down an aisle. They remained seated until the pictures had all been shown and a repetition was begun, when the plaintiff stated to her companions that it was time to go. Plaintiff walked into the aisle on her way out of the building, and proceeded a short distance out by the way she had entered, when she was met by an usher and directed to go out through an exit at the side of the room. She proceeded to the exit indicated, where a bright light was located directly in the corridor, and where there was a step down of about seven inches--an ordinary step to the floor of the corridor. She did not notice this step. She testified that the bright light dazzled her as she came out of the darkened room, and as she stepped into the corridor she fell and broke her leg. The plaintiff had never been in the place before, and was not acquainted with the arrangement thereof.

It is argued by the appellant that it was negligence to maintain the step at that place, and also negligence to direct the plaintiff to depart by a way other than the way by which she had entered. There is no merit in these contentions. It is no doubt the rule that an owner of a place of public entertainment is charged with the duty to maintain a reasonably safe place for his patrons. 38 Cyc. 268. The mere fact that a step up or one down, or a flight of steps up or down, is maintained at the entrance or exit is no evidence of negligence, especially if the step is in good...