Miller v. Poli's New England Theatres, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1939 |
| Parties | MILLER v. POLI'S NEW ENGLAND THEATRES, Inc. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas for Judicial District of Waterbury; Edward J. Finn, Judge.
Action by Frances Miller against Poli's New England Theatres Inc., for injuries resulting from a fall in a theater alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant brought to Court of Common Pleas and tried to the court. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Error and new trial granted.
In patron's action for injuries sustained in theater court erred in imposing upon theater operator absolute duty to make theater reasonably safe for patrons instead of using reasonable care to that end, having regard to the nature of entertainment and necessities thereof.
Morris W. Mendlesohn, of New Haven, for appellant.
Vincent A. Miller and William F. Jones, Jr., both of Waterbury, for appellee.
Argued Before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.
The Palace Theatre in Waterbury is owned and operated by the defendant as a moving picture theatre. The floor of the auditorium slants downward toward the stage. In consequence, beginning with fourteenth row from the stage, twenty-nine rows of seats to the rear rest on platforms elevated above the aisle, the elevations increasing gradually until the platform on which the last row of seats rests is even and one-half inches above the aisle. In the afternoon of November 27, 1937, the plaintiff and her sister entered as patrons and selected seats in the rear row, the plaintiff occupying the second seat from the aisle. At the time she entered a moving picture was being projected, but there was sufficient light so that she could see that there was no usher near and she chose her own seat. She remained about three hours and a half, and then started to leave while pictures were still being shown. In stepping from the platform to the aisle she missed her footing and fell, striking on her back on the floor of the aisle and was injured. While the complaint includes several specifications of negligence the record indicates that the element relied on at the trial and upon which the award of damages was predicated was inadequacy of lighting at the place where the fall occurred.
The finding contains the foregoing facts, also that above the place where the plaintiff fell there was a circular glass ceiling fixture, about four feet in diameter and nine of ten feet from the floor, in which were three circuits of eight twenty-five watt electric lights each, the bulbs of one of these circuits being white, of another blue and of the third red. Before the showing of pictures started the white lamps were lighted but when the showing started they were extinguished and the two colored circuits were lighted, and this was the condition when the plaintiff entered, while she was there, and when she started to leave. Additional light came from a smaller ceiling panel, containing four red and four blue twenty-five watt bulbs, also nine or ten feet from the floor. The light from these overhead lamps shone directly on a white line which was painted at the edge of the platform from which the plaintiff fell. There was also, on the rear wall about fifteen feet distant, a bracket wall fixture containing three twenty-five watt orange-amber lights. The above described lights were diffused lights with the purpose of avoiding interference with vision of the moving pictures. There was more light at this point than at other places further forward in the auditorium and where the plaintiff customarily had sat on former visits of the theatre. The defendant caused inspections of the lights to be made Before and during the showing of the pictures.
The floor of the platform was of wood and unpainted except for a strip painted white along the edge next the aisle. The finding states that this strip was one inch wide, but the evidence, especially the photographic exhibits, requires the requested correction that its width was two and one-half to three inches. The aisle floor was covered by a carpet of red color with a pattern of black and yellow. The trial court found that the painted white line ‘ reflects white only in a white light; it did not reflect white in red and blue beams from the ceiling panels.’ The defendant truly claims that this finding is without support in the evidence. The only direct evidence to the point was on behalf of the defendant to the effect that the reflected lights ‘ made the white surface at the edge of the platform stand out vividly.’ Granted that this evidence might not be credited, there was no evidence to the contrary and it is apparent that in finding this fact the trial court resorted to judicial notice. However, we cannot agree that this is a matter of such ‘ common and general knowledge’ and ‘ authoritatively settled’ beyond doubt or uncertainty as to be a proper subject therefor. 20 Am.Jur. p. 48; Dejon v. Smedley Co., 108 Conn. 659, 670, 144 A. 473. Therefore this finding cannot stand. The finding that the plaintiff ‘ was unable to observe the difference in levels of the platform and the aisle’ is stronger than the evidence justifies. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial