Valentine Co. v. Sloan

Decision Date14 March 1913
Docket NumberNo. 7,848.,7,848.
PartiesVALENTINE CO. v. SLOAN.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; Charles Remster, Judge.

Action by Mary F. Sloan against the Valentine Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. H. H. Miller, C. C. Shirley, Samuel D. Miller, and W. H. Thompson, all of Indianapolis, for appellant. John H. Kingsbury, of Indianapolis, for appellee.

IBACH, C. J.

Appellee brought this action and recovered $1,500 damages for personal injuries occasioned by appellant's negligence in maintaining steps in a dangerous condition in the gallery of English's Opera House at Indianapolis.

It is assigned as error and argued (1) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for new trial, upon the grounds that the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury and in admitting certain evidence.

The charging portion of the complaint is in the following words: “The plaintiff, Mary F. Sloan, complains of defendant, the Valentine Company, a corporation, and for cause of action avers that defendant maintains a public theater, viz., English Opera House, wherein it presents for reward public entertainments. That in said opera house certain aisles have been constructed and maintained on an elevation in excess of 45 degrees, with steps therein of uneven and irregular width, to wit, of the dimensions approximately of the tread at 12 and 16 inches, respectively. That for want of uniformity in tread of said steps they are deceptive and dangerous for one to descend, if not familiar with said condition. That on evening of February 8, 1908, defendant conducted a public entertainment in said theater, and that during and prior to said performance said defendant, with notice and knowledge of uneven and irregular tread of said steps, did negligently and carelessly fail, neglect, and omit to furnish and provide light of sufficient candle power, so as to efficiently disclose and expose said uneven and irregular condition of said steps. That on evening of said February 8, 1908, at the invitation of defendant, plaintiff visited said theater and attended an entertainment given by defendant therein. That she paid, and caused to be paid, to defendant the reward charged by it therefor. That at the invitation and direction of defendant plaintiff entered said theater shortly before commencement of said entertainment, and while attempting to descend an aisle therein with said elevation in excess of 45 degrees, and with said irregular and uneven steps constructed with tread at 12 and 16 inches, respectively, as aforesaid, and negligently maintained by defendant without sufficient candle power light to expose and disclose said condition. That while plaintiff was so attempting to descend said aisle she was deceived by the irregular and uneven condition of said steps, and was tripped thereby and thrown with great violence, whereby her head was injured and her forearm broken. And plaintiff charges that she did not know of the uneven and irregular condition of said steps, and did not see, and could not see, the condition of said steps because of negligent failure of defendant to furnish sufficient light to expose and disclose the condition of said steps.” That by reason of said injury plaintiff has contracted certain described injuries, for which she asks damages.

[1] It appears from the averments of the complaint that appellant was negligent in maintaining steps in the aisle of its opera house in an irregular and uneven...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Clark v. Monroe Cnty. Fair Ass'n
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 15 Febrero 1927
    ...Conn. 706, 82 A. 6351; Hart v. Washington Park Club, 157 Ill. 9, 41 N. E. 620, 29 L. R. A. 492, 48 Am. St. Rep. 298;Valentine Co. v. Sloan, 53 Ind. App. 69, 101 N. E. 102;New Theater Co. v. Hartlove, 123 Md. 78, 90 A. 990;Thompson v. Lowell, etc., 170 Mass. 577, 49 N. E. 913, 40 L. R. A. 34......
  • Clark v. Monroe County Fair Ass'n
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 15 Febrero 1927
    ... ... 706 (82 ... A. 635); Hart v ... [212 N.W. 166] ... Washington Park Club, 157 Ill. 9 (41 N.E. 620, 29 ... L.R.A. 492); Valentine Co. v. Sloan, 53 Ind.App. 69 ... (101 N.E. 102); New Theatre Co. v. Hartlove, 123 Md ... 78 (90 A. 990); Thompson v. Lowell, Lawrence & Haverhill ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT