Johnson v. Amphitheatre Corporation

• Decision Date: 17 November 1939
• Docket Number: No. 32157.,32157.
• Citation: 288 N.W. 386,206 Minn. 282
• Parties: JOHNSON v. AMPHITHEATRE CORPORATION.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

288 N.W. 386

206 Minn. 282

JOHNSON v. AMPHITHEATRE CORPORATION.

No. 32157.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 17, 1939.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; C. R. Magney, Judge.

Action by Clara Johnson against the Amphitheatre Corporation to recover damages for injuries sustained at the defendant's skating rink. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff or a new trial, the defendant appeals.

Order affirmed.

Gillette, Nye, Harries & Montague and W. O. Bissonett, all of Duluth, for appellant.

Jenswold & Dahle, of Duluth, for respondent.

HOLT, Justice.

The defendant corporation was operating a large roller skating rink in the Amphitheatre Building at Duluth. The building is bounded on the north by Superior street, on the west and east by 12th and 13th avenues east, and on the south by London Road. The skating part of the rink is 140 feet long from west to east, and is located along the south side. A few steps up is the lobby. That also is 140 feet long from west to east, and 32 feet wide. North of the lobby and two steps up are two entrance lobbies, one in the northeast corner and one in the northwest corner. The latter only was open during the time in question. Adjacent to the northwest entrance along the north wall of the building were the ticket office, the manager's office, the men's lavatory, the refreshment room and the women's lavatory, next to the northeast entrance lobby. Near the southeast corner of the lobby was the check room, and near the southwest corner thereof the skate room. About the center of the lobby running east and west was a row of six pillars. Between the pillars were two rows of seats, back to back, used for rest and for putting on and taking off the skates. The skating proper was on the main skating floor, and was regulated and supervised by one or two men in uniform. The skaters were thereon required to go in the same direction. If the uniformed men blew a whistle the skaters stopped and reversed direction. It is conceded that the skating floor proper was efficiently supervised by uniformed employes. Plaintiff, a young woman 34 years of age, patronized defendant's rink on the evening of May 26, 1938. Soon after 9:30 P. M. she decided to depart and left the skating floor, ascended to the lobby, coasted over to the women's lavatory, and, on coming out, finding the seats in the east end of the lobby pretty well occupied, concluded to go over to the steps leading down from the northeast entrance lobby and there remove the skates. As she reached the destination and was about to turn to sit down, a couple of 15 or 16 year old boys chasing each other fell down and one of them struck her ankle with such force as to fracture both bones just above the joint.

This action for damages followed, based on allegations that plaintiff's injury proximately resulted from defendant's negligence in that it knew and in the exercise of ordinary care should have known that boy patrons of the rink frequently engaged in boisterous conduct and skating in the lobby and failed and neglected to prevent the same by the employment of sufficient employes to give reasonable protection to its patrons in the lobby. Defendant denied negligence, and alleged that, if plaintiff sustained any injuries, they were due to her own carelessness, and that she assumed the risks connected with roller skating. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial was denied, and defendant appeals.

There are but two assignments of error: (a) the court erred in refusing to grant defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence; and (b) the court erred in giving plaintiff's requested instructions Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Defendant had a sign at either end of the lobby reading: "No Skating in Lobby". Defendant's manager testified that this did not mean and was not understood to mean that patrons could not keep their skates on when passing over the lobby to the lavatories, the refreshment room, the check room, the skate room, or in passing to and from the skating floor to the seats between the pillars in the lobby, but that it meant that no such skating as was done on the skating floor proper was to occur in the lobby. It was estimated that some 200 persons attended on the evening in question and that it was an average crowd. No one person was employed whose sole duty was to maintain order in the lobby. Two young men in charge of the check room had instruction to warn disorderly persons; but when not busy with taking in or handing out coats or wraps, the one had the privilege of skating on the skating floor, while the other had to remain in or within a few feet of the check room so as to protect against theft. Mr. Klapich, the ticket seller, was claimed to have authority to supervise the lobby, but he had other duties and was stationed more than 100 feet away from where plaintiff was injured, the intervening space being filled to a great extent by persons...