Jackson v. Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, Inc

Decision Date30 June 1937
Docket Number5468
Citation175 So. 688
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
PartiesJACKSON v. SAENGER-EHRLICH ENTERPRISES, Inc

Frank A. Blanchard and Chas. L. Mayer, both of Shreveport, for appellant.

Foster Hall, Barret & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellee.

OPINION

HAMITER Judge.

While making her exit from the Saenger Theater in Shreveport, La after having witnessed a motion picture performance plaintiff fell on a stairway and received injuries. She claims damages from the owner and operator of the theater in the amount of $ 1,525.

The trial court rejected her demands and she appealed.

In his written opinion, the district judge correctly states that:

"The Saenger Theater is a motion picture house in the City of Shreveport, owned and operated by the defendant. Both the entrance and exit are on Milam street. First from the street comes the lobby where is situated the ticket window. Leading from this on the right or east side is the entrance where tickets are taken up; on the left or west side is an exit similar to the entrance on the right; both right and left sides are used as exits, while the right side is the only entrance. In both of these passage-ways there is a stairway consisting of eight steps leading from the level of the theater proper to the level of the lobby. These stairways are forty-eight inches wide and are covered in the middle part of same with a carpet. The steps are concrete with wooden strips set into same on which the stair runner or carpet is tacked.

"On the night of August 30, 1934, the plaintiff and her husband attended the show at this theater, and as they were leaving going down one of these stairways, Mrs. Jackson fell and received some injuries for which she seeks to recover in this suit on the allegation that she caught the heel of her shoe in the carpet. She claims in her petition that it was the west stairway and that said carpet strip "was not securely fastened, and that said strip had been carelessly laid and improperly and unsecurely tacked or fastened and that said strip was loose at the end.'

"There can be no doubt but plaintiff was a patron at this theatre on the night in question, and that as she was leaving she fell on one of the stairways. There can be no doubt but that it is the duty of the proprieter of such a place to keep it in a reasonably safe condition for those attending same."

Supplementary to the last paragraph of the preceding quotation, it can properly be said that operators of establishments such as the one in question are not insurers of persons patronizing them. They must, however, be free from negligence. Givens v. De Soto Building Co. et al., 156 La. 377, 100 So. 534; McKelvy v. Capitol Amusement Co. (La.App.) 159 So. 143. They are required to exercise care, for the protection of their patrons against injury, proportionate to the danger known or reasonably to be apprehended, and commensurate with the circumstances and risks of the situation. 62 Corpus Juris, verbo, Theaters and Shows, §53.

The question of whether or not defendant failed to use the required care and was negligent is one of fact and must be decided solely from the evidence taken on the trial of the case.

The record contains a mass of testimony relating to the particular stairway, and the exact place thereon, where the fall occurred, and to the cause of plaintiff's falling. This is conflicting beyond reconciliation. We shall content ourselves with merely summarizing the proof given in behalf of the respective litigants. A detailed discussion of the testimony of each witness will be of no benefit.

The evidence offered by plaintiff's witnesses tends to show that Mrs. Jackson and her husband went to the theater between 8:30 and 9:00 o'clock. After purchasing the necessary tickets, they proceeded through the east passageway, ascended the stairs therein located, and occupied...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 16, 1969
    ...slip with him, with resulting liability. (Sharpless v. Pantages, 178 Cal. 122, 172 P. 384 (loose carpeting); cf. Jackson v. Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, La.App., 175 So. 688 (high heels through carpet); Heckel v. Standard Gateway Theatre, 229 Wis. 80, 281 N.W. 640 (terrazzo stairway covered......
  • Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • December 31, 1942
    ... ... on the screen. * * * " ... In Gunn v ... Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, Inc., et al., 192 So. 744, 745, ... the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in ... the protection of their patrons against injuries. Jackson v ... Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, La.App., 175 So. 688; McKelvy v ... Capitol Amusement ... ...
  • Cavaretta v. Universal Film Exchanges, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • June 14, 1938
    ... ... seats provided for their use. Lonatro v. Palace Theatre ... Co., 5 La.App. 386; Jackson v. Saenger-Ehrlich ... Enterprises, Inc., La.App., 175 So. 688; McKelvy v ... Capitol Amusement ... ...
  • Mahfouz v. Southern Amusement Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • June 18, 1941
    ... ... Jackson ... & Mayer, of Shreveport, for appellant ... Jas ... A. Horton, of New Orleans, and ... protection of their patrons against injuries. Jackson v ... Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, La.App., 175 So. 688; McKelvy v ... Capital Amusement Company, Inc., La.App., 159 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT