Knapp v. Connecticut Theatrical Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1937 |
| Citation | 122 Conn. 413,190 A. 291 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | KNAPP v. CONNECTICUT THEATRICAL CORPORATION. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Edwin C. Dickenson Judge.
Action by Mildred G. Knapp, executrix of the will of E. Frost Knapp deceased, against the Connecticut Theatrical Corporation to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
If owner of premises to which public is impliedly invited has negligently misled a business visitor into reasonable belief that passageway or door is an appropriate means of reaching a portion of premises to which he is invited, he is entitled to protection of a " business visitor" in using such passageway or door.
Charles P. Roraback and Valentine J. Sacco, both of Torrington, for appellant.
Charles S. House and James W. Carpenter, both of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.
The following facts appear from the finding, which is not subject to correction in any material respect: On August 1, 1934, plaintiff's decedent purchased tickets of admission to defendant's theater for himself and his wife, and entered the theater at about 6:45 p. m. (daylight saving time). He was in a hurry to reach the men's toilet, and for that purpose turned from the main entrance into the orchestra promenade upon which was located the men's room and toilet which he had visited on a previous occasion. The orchestra promenade runs at right angles to the entrance foyer of the theater, and is 87 feet long and 12 feet wide. Upon this promenade there were entrances to the ladies' room, the men's room and to an alcove, on one side of which there was located a telephone booth and on the other a door leading to the basement of the theater. Each of these entrances was about four feet wide and had no door. In the men's room there were swinging doors leading into the toilet which were plainly discernible from the entrance to the room. Above each entrance there was a sign made of glass in a metal frame with a light illuminating it which read, respectively, " Ladies," " Gentlemen," and " Telephone." The signs extended at right angles to the wall, the letters on them were two inches high and were adequately lighted by the lights in the frames, were readily discernible from either end of the promenade, and were prominently located to attract the attention of the public. There were two sets of overhead lights in the entrance foyer and six in the promenade approximately 20 feet apart, which were adequate so that one could readily discern a coin on the floor. All of these lights were lighted when plaintiff's decedent entered the theater. The door in the alcove which led to the basement was equipped with a mechanical closing device but was unlocked and had no sign to indicate its use. It had never been used by the public. It opened upon a steep flight of cement stairs three feet two inches wide leading to the basement. On the night in question there was a can containing paper and rubbish on the second step of the stairs occupying at least fifteen inches of the stairway. Plaintiff's decedent passed the entrance to the men's room, and by mistake entered the alcove where the telephone booth was located, opened the door upon the stairway which was unlighted, stepped down and fell over the waste paper container, and fell to the floor of the basement, sustaining injuries which caused his death.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in leaving the door opening upon an unlighted stairway unlocked with no notice that it was not to be used by the patrons of the theater, and in leaving the rubbish container upon the stairway. The trial court held that in opening the door and proceeding down the stairs plaintiff's decedent was not an invitee but a trespasser, that he was guilty of contributory negligence, and that the defendant was not negligent.
Plaintiff's decedent was a business visitor to defendant's theater and the defendant owed to him the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep its premises reasonably safe for his use, since the privilege of use existed for the common interest of both. Bunnell v. Waterbury Hospital, 103 Conn. 520, 525, 131 A. 501. Such a visitor is commonly referred to as an invitee, since he is upon the premises upon either the express or implied invitation of the owner. One may be an invitee as to a portion of a building and not enjoy that status as to other portions thereof. That status does not exist when the invitee is using a portion of the premises to which the invitation has not been extended either expressly or impliedly, and which the owner would not reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Misiti, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.
...open to him as a means of access to or egress from the place where his business is to be transacted.’ ” Knapp v. Connecticut Theatrical Corp., 122 Conn. 413, 416, 190 A. 291 (1937), quoting 2 Restatement, Torts § 343, comment (b), p. 942 (1934). Thus, a landowner can be liable in tort for a......
-
Murphy v. Fred Wolferman, Inc.
... ... 123; American ... Natl. Bank v. Wolfe, 125 S.W.2d 196; Knapp v ... Connecticut Theatrical Corp., 122 Conn. 413, 190 A. 292; ... ...
-
Frankovitch v. Burton
...295, 299, 50 A.2d 416 (1946); Guilford v. Yale University, 128 Conn. 449, 454, 23 A.2d 917 (1942); Knapp v. Connecticut Theatrical Corporation, 122 Conn. 413, 416, 190 A. 291 (1937). The defendant argues, however, that this duty of care does not extend to those portions of the premises whic......
-
Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Ass'n
...141 Conn. 121, 124, 104 A.2d 214 [1954]; Girard v. Kabatznick, 128 Conn. 520, 525, 24 A.2d 257 [1942]; Knapp v. Connecticut Theatrical Corporation, 122 Conn. 413, 417, 190 A. 291 [1937]. Where, however, the facts essential to the determination of the plaintiff's status are not in dispute, a......