Rosston v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 05 January 1932 |
| Citation | 179 N.E. 173,278 Mass. 31 |
| Parties | ROSSTON v. SULLIVAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Berkshire County; Burns, Judge.
Action by Ida J. Rosston against John F. Sullivan. After verdict for plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions.
Sustained, and judgment rendered for defendant.E. D. Getman and W. A. O'Hearn, both of North Adams, for plaintiff.
C. H. Wright, of Pittsfield, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries sustained in a theatre owned and operated by the defendant. The verdict was for the plaintiff. Exceptions were saved to the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant and to give certain requests for rulings.
The judge stated to the jury, without objection, that they could not find any defective construction of the theatre and that the negligence, if any, was in the failure to provide such light as a reasonable, prudent theatre owner, manager or operator would have provided in view of that construction.
The defendant's manager testified, in substance, that the theatre is one hundred and ten feet long by sixty-five feet in width, having three tiers of seats and four aisles separating the tiers from each other and from the walls; that an entrance hall leads along the whole length of the theatre on the south side and is connected with a pasageway at the rear of the tiers of seats, nine feet wide and nine feet high, extending the width of the theatre; that the light usually kept burning during the showing of a picture are five fifteen to twenty-five watt lamps in the ceiling of this passageway reflecting a very soft colored light, two similar lights in standing lamps in the passageway, and three similar lights on each long wall of the theatre. He also testified that it was the custom to turn on the ‘house lights' at the conclusion of the show; that at the time of the accident the amount of light was that ordinarily used in the picture house when moving pictures were shown and was the usual motion picture theatre lighting; that there must be a condition of semi-darkness to enable a person to see the pictures satisfactorily; that there were ushers with flash lights to conduct people to their seats; that the elevation of the seats in the theatre begins in the seventeenth row, even with the front edge of the balcony, half way back from the stage, and goes up gradually; that in this part of the theatre the elevation at the front of the seat is four inches running bank to nothing or the width of a board at the rear of the seat; that if the step-up is four inches in front it may be five inches in stepping up from the aisle toward the rear.
The plaintiff testified that when she entered the theatre with her sister a picture was being shown and they found their way to seats in the third or fourth row from the rear, in the northernmost tier of seats, without the aid of an usher; that they remained in the theatre for an hour or an hour and three quarters and at the end of a picture at about five o'clock she waited a second or two for another to come on and saw people going out and though the show was over; that she started to go out before the house lights were turned on when everything was dark; that she knew the step was there but could not see it; that she looked right down and stepped carefully, but the depth was greater than she thought, and as she stepped down she was thrown and suffered the injuries complained of; that there were no lights lit under the balcony; that if there were lights in the passageway at the rear they were very dim. In cross-examination she at first said that there was no light in the theatre anywhere, and then said if there were lights over the exits or in the back of the theatre they were very dim; that there were no lights along the north wall of the theatre and she saw none along the south said; that she does not know whether there were any on that side or not; that she could see people moving in the dark; that she did not notice whether the lights on the north side of the theatre were lit or not when she entered, or whether they were then lit on the back or south side; that when she started to leave she did not look to see whether the lights on the north...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La Sell v. Tri-States Theatre Corp.
...common practice of moving picture exhibitors to permit patrons to enter and leave the theater at all times during the show. The rule of the Rosston case is adopted in Falk v. Stanley Fabian supra, 115 N.J.L. 141, 178 A. 740, 741. The court, after commenting that there could be neither too m......
-
Bergstresser v. Minnesota Amusement Co.
...in exhibiting moving pictures to enable the audience to get a reasonably clear view of the image thrown on the screen. Rosston v. Sullivan, 278 Mass. 31, 179 N.E. 173. understand that to be the law. Also, in our opinion, the person who sues upon the ground that the condition of light was no......
-
Bergstresser v. Minn. Amuse. Co.
...of care required of proprietors or managers of a theater for the safety of its patrons is ordinary and reasonable care. Rosston v. Sullivan, 278 Mass. 31, 179 N. E. 173; Peck v. Yale Amusement Co., Mo. Sup., 195 S. W. 1033; Jennings v. Tompkins, 180 Mass. 302, 62 N. E. 265; Dire v. Balaban ......
-
Drumwright v. North Carolina Theatres
... ... balcony during a showing of the picture. Falk v. Stanley ... Fabian Corporation of Delaware, 115 N.J.L. 141, 178 A ... 740; Rosston v. Sullivan, 278 Mass. 31, 179 N.E ... 173; Anno. 143 A.L.R. 68. The difference between the width of ... the treads or seat platforms and the ... ...