Klish v. Alaskan Amusement Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | 34993. |
| Citation | 109 P.2d 75,153 Kan. 93 |
| Parties | KLISH v. ALASKAN AMUSEMENT CO. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Those managing, controlling, and operating a theater where ice hockey game was being held, were not liable to patron who was injured when program seller in crowded aisle, because of the jostling of the crowd, lost his balance and fell down the aisle, striking patron in the back, where there was no showing that the theater, or any part of it, was defective and it was not contended that the program seller was an agent or employee of defendants, or that defendants knew that the aisle was overcrowded.
Though the proprietor of a place of public amusement is held to stricter accountability for injury to patrons than owners of private premises generally, he is not an "insurer" of the safety of the patrons, but owes them only what, under the particular circumstances, is ordinary and reasonable care.
Since crowds are common at theaters and other places of amusement a proprietor is not negligent in permitting a theater or other place of amusement to become crowded.
The degree of care required of the managers of theaters is not as high as that required of common carriers.
1. While the proprietor of a place of public amusement is held to a stricter accountability for injury to patrons than owners of private premises generally, the rule is that he is not an insurer of the patrons, but owes them only what, under the particular circumstances, is ordinary and reasonable care.
2. Crowds are common at theaters and other places of amusement. The permitting of crowding in a place of amusement in itself is not negligence.
Appeal from District Court, Sedgwick County, Division No. 3; Grover Pierpont, Judge.
Action by Nanette L. Klish against the Alaskan Amusement Company and others for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while viewing hockey game. Defendants' demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.
Ruling affirmed.
Clarence R. Sowers, Claude E. Sowers, and Byron Brainerd, all of Wichita, for appellant.
W. D Jochems, Emmet A. Blaes, Paul J. Wall, Carl I. Winsor, Z Wetmore, and Geo. M. Ashford, all of Wichita, for appellees Alaskan Amusement Co. and others.
This was an action for damages for personal injuries. Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's petition was sustained, and she has appealed.
In the petition it was alleged that defendants managed, controlled and operated a theater, known as the Alaskan Ice Palace, in Wichita as a public place of amusement for games of ice hockey; that on a date named plaintiff purchased a reserve seat ticket for admission to one of the games; that defendants thereby impliedly warranted they would exercise ordinary care for plaintiff's protection while viewing the game; that she attended the game and was seated next to the aisle in the second or third row; that defendants negligently permitted the aisle next to her seat to become overcrowded by patrons and spectators who apparently were unable to find seats, and negligently permitted concessionists, who may or may not have been employees of defendants, to circulate among the people standing in the crowded aisle for the purpose of selling programs; that while the game was in progress and plaintiff was giving her attention to it one Philip Razook, while attempting to sell programs in the crowded aisle, and because of the jostling of the crowd in the aisle, lost his balance and fell, feet forward, down the aisle, and one of his feet struck plaintiff in the back, causing serious physical injuries, resulting in plaintiff's damage in a sum named.
It will be observed there is no claim that the premises, or any part of it, was defective. It is not contended that Razook was an agent or an employee of defendants. Neither is it alleged that defendants knew the aisle was overcrowded. With commendable frankness appellant's theory of the case is stated in her brief as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bergstresser v. Minnesota Amusement Co.
... ... Warner Bros. Theatres, 115 W.Va ... 641, 177 S.E. 629; Richard-Lightman Theatre Corp. v. Vick, ... 201 Ark. 1001, 147 S.W.2d 731; Klish v. Alaskan Amusement ... Co., 153 Kan. 93, 109 P.2d 75; Rynn v. Fox-New England ... Theatres, Inc., 299 Mass. 258, 12 N.E.2d 728; Young et al. v ... ...
-
Bergstresser v. Minn. Amuse. Co.
...Bros. Theatres, 115 W. Va. 641, 177 S. E. 629; Richard-Lightman Theatre Corp. v. Vick, 201 Ark. 1001, 147 SW2d 731; Klish v. Alaskan Amusement Co., 153 Kan. 93, 109 P.2d 75; Rynn v. Fox-New England Theatres, Inc., 299 Mass. 258, 12 NE2d 728; Young et al. v. Ross et al., 127 N. J. L. 211, 21......
-
Little v. Butner
...fell on something which was in plain sight to be seen. In making the contention, the defendants cite and rely upon Klish v. Alaskan Amusement Co., 153 Kan. 93, 109 P.2d 75; Hickey v. Fox-Ozark Theatres Corp., 156 Kan. 137, 131 P.2d 671; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488, 163 P.2d......
-
Aaser v. City of Charlotte, 275
...of an arena has been held not liable for injury resulting from the normal jostling of a crowd at a hockey game. Klish v. Alaskan Amusement Co., 153 Kan. 93, 109 P.2d 75. The duty of the owner extends to the physical condition of the premises, themselves, and to contemplated and foreseeable ......