Lancaster v. Highlands Finance Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1937
• Docket Number: No. 32.,32.
• Citation: 189 A. 371
• Parties: LANCASTER v. HIGHLANDS FINANCE CORPORATION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

189 A. 371

LANCASTER

v. HIGHLANDS FINANCE CORPORATION.

No. 32.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 22, 1937.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Edith Lancaster against the Highlands Finance Corporation. From a judgment for plaintiff, after denial of motions for nonsuit and for direction of verdict for defendant, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Reginald V. Spell and A. William Wann, both of Newark, and William A. Hengeveld, of Paterson, for appellant.

Michael Shershin and. Milton Werksman, both of Clifton, for appellee.

WOLFSKEIL, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment obtained by the plaintiff for injuries sustained as the result of a fall alleged to have been due to the negligence of the defendant in failing sufficiently to illuminate the lobby of a motion picture theater operated by it. Motions for nonsuit and direction of verdict for the defendant were denied and the denial is the ground urged for reversal.

From the proofs adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it appears that she visited the theater of the defendant in the company of several relatives. After witnessing the presentation of a picture, she proceeded to leave the darkened auditorium through a closed door located at the end of the right aisle. This door had a red light over it marked "Exit" and swung outward. As plaintiff pushed her way through the door to enter the lobby of the theater, she fell over two steps and was injured. There was testimony that the light in the lobby was so dim that she was unable to distinguish between the levels of the auditorium and the lobby and that it all looked like one platform. There was a chandelier in the center of the lobby and a spotlight on the right. There is some discrepancy as to the volume of the light which radiated from these fixtures, plaintiff's daughter testifying that the spotlight was not lighted while another witness said the chandelier was dimly lighted. The proof from three witnesses, however, was to the effect that the lobby was very dark and that they were unable to perceive the steps where plaintiff fell, or at best only vaguely. The posture of the proofs after the defendant's case had been submitted was substantially the same with but few exceptions. It was admitted that the center chandelier had been shut off when the box office was closed at about 9:30 p. m. It was claimed, however, that when the accident occurred there was a baby spotlight burning a 400 stereopticon bulb on the right of the lobby and a 100-watt lamp over the box office from which there was sufficient light so that people could see to safely enter or leave the theater from the right or left door. There was also offered in evidence for the defendant a photograph (Exhibit D-2) from which it is apparent that the steps immediately beyond the door opening outward between the interior of the theater and the lower level of the lobby had a descent flush with the line of the door.

It is a well-settled rule that in passing upon motions to nonsuit and for the direction of a verdict the court cannot weigh the evidence but must take as true all evidence which supports the view of the party against whom the motions are made and must give him the benefit of all legitimate inferences which are to be drawn therefrom in his favor. Fine & Jackson, etc, Corp. v. L. V. R. Co, 110 N.J.Law, 385, 166 A. 184; Lipschitz v. New York & N. J. Produce Corp, 111 NJ.Law, 392, 168 A. 390; Repasky v. Novich, 113 N.J. Law, 126, 172 A. 374; Israel v. Travelers' Ins. Co, 116 N.J.Law, 154, 182 A. 840. Applying the rule here we are satisfied that a factual question was presented which only the jury could determine and that the motions for nonsuit and...