Steinke v. Palladium Amusement Co.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 21051.,21051.
• Parties: STEINKE v. PALLADIUM AMUSEMENT CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

28 S.W.2d 440

STEINKE v. PALLADIUM AMUSEMENT CO.

No. 21051.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 3, 1930.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1930.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Victor H. Falkenhainer, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Harry C. Steinke against the Palladium Amusement Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Stout & Spencer, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Taylor R. Young and A. Victor Miller, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action for personal injuries received by plaintiff while roller skating on the floor of a rink owned and operated by defendant at 3628 Enright avenue, in the city of St. Louis, on October 27, 1926. The skating floor of the rink where plaintiff was skating is surrounded by a wire mesh rail about two and one-half or three feet high, with six openings or exits in it. There is a space between the wire rail and the wall of the building, known as the promenade. The floor of the rink is wooden, and is the same inside and outside the rail. The openings or exits in the rail are about fourteen feet wide. One of these openings is at the southeast corner of the rink. There is a doorway east of this opening about eight feet high and seven feet wide. The floor inside the rail is polished, and the one outside also is polished. There is a slight slope from the floor inside the rail to that outside the rail. The entrance to the building is at the sidewalk on the north side of the building. The floor of the rink is about two hundred feet from north to south and about one hundred eleven feet in width. The rail around the inner skating floor is about eight feet west of the east wall, thirty feet south of the north wall, twenty feet north of the south wall, and twenty feet east of the west wall. The doorway in the east wall has double doors opening outward. These doors when closed were fastened by perpendicular bolts which were pressed into openings in the sill and top of the doorway by means of an iron lever. This lever was located about three or three and one-half feet above the floor, and was in a horizontal position when the doors were fastened. A slight downward pressure on the lever withdrew the bolts from the sill and top of the doorway, and allowed the doors to open outward on pressure from the inside. There was a vacant lot adjacent to the east wall of the building. Defendant was not the owner of this lot. The surface of this lot was originally on a level with the floor of the rink, and the doorway was used as a panic exit. Several months prior to plaintiff's injury the lot was excavated to a depth of about twelve feet by the owner, in order to make a parking lot, thus leaving a perpendicular drop of twelve feet from the doorway to the bottom of the excavation. Plaintiff, just prior to his injury, was skating on the skating floor inside the rail. Desiring to speak to his sister, who was standing on the east side of the rink, near the doorway, he skated through the opening in the rail just opposite the doorway, and attempted to stop at the doorway by pressing his hands against the doors. Thereupon the doors opened outward, and he fell through the doorway onto the hood and fender of an automobile which was parked immediately under the doorway. He thereby received the injuries for which he sues.

By way of specifications of negligence plaintiff charges in his petition that the defendant negligently failed to securely fasten the doors in the east wall of the rink; negligently failed to erect or construct a proper barrier so as to prevent any one from falling through said doors to the ground below while using the rink; negligently permitted said doors to become loose, insecure, and unsafe, by permitting the fastening or latch holding said doors stationary to be removed from its place; negligently failed to give plaintiff any notice or warning of the dangerous, insecure, and unsafe condition of said doors; negligently failed to post any warning or light at said doors, warning plaintiff of the unsafe, insecure, and dangerous condition; negligently permitted the frame and framework of said doors to become rotten and decayed and out of repair; and negligently failed to provide said doors with any fastening, lock, or latch for the purpose of securing said doors and making same fast to the framework of the doorway.

The answer is a general denial coupled with a plea of contributory negligence.

The trial, with a jury, resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $4,000, and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff had been attending defendant's rink for about seven years. On the evening of his injury he had paid the price of admission to the rink, and had been skating about an hour and a half or two hours before he was injured. A large crowd, two or three hundred in number, had congregated in the rink, a great many of whom were skating both on the promenade and inside the wire mesh rail, while others were watching the performance. It appears to have been the practice for the skaters to skate around on the promenade as well as on the skating floor within the rail. It was also shown to have been the practice for skaters when skating from the skating floor inside the rail by way of the opening opposite the doors through which plaintiff fell when he was injured to stop themselves against the doors.

The evidence for the plaintiff was to the effect that the doors were not fastened at the time plaintiff skated against them, that is, that the lever had been pushed down so as to withdraw from the sill and top of the doorway the bolts which held the doors; that plaintiff, when he skated against the doors, put his hands against the doors above the iron lever to stop himself, and that the doors opened, and he fell as before stated.

There was evidence on the part of defend...