West v. Seigle Theatre

• Decision Date: 29 November 1940
• Docket Number: 6275.
• Citation: 200 So. 339
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: WEST v. SEIGLE THEATRE ET AL.

200 So. 339

WEST v. SEIGLE THEATRE ET AL.

No. 6275.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

November 29, 1940

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1941.

Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita; D F. Garrett, Judge.

Action by Johnnie West against the Seigle Theatre and others, for injuries sustained in a stampede of patrons precipitated by fire alarm. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

$78 for loss of three months' work, $250 for pain and discomfort and $50 for physician's services was a proper award to 46-year-old man who earned livelihood by yard working and who sustained a dislocated ankle and suffered a spica fracture of the oscalcis but suffered no permanent injury.

M. C Redmond, of Monroe, for appellant.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellees.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The defendants, Roland and Otto Seigle, own and operate a moving picture theatre in the City of Monroe, Louisiana, the balcony of which is set apart for the exclusive use of colored patrons. Plaintiff, a colored man, while viewing a picture therein was injured in a stampede of patrons precipitated by one or more persons yelling " Fire!", when the film of the picture then being projected ignited. He sues for damages resulting from the injury.

Evidently, plaintiff did not know, when he filed suit, the true origin of the film's ignition. He alleged that the fire was attributable to defendants' carelessness and negligence in that the film was an old one and which, from constant use, wear and tear had become very defective; that due to its physical condition the film caused the projecting machine to " hang up" in some manner and, being of combustible substance, caught on fire.

Defendants denied all of the allegations of the petition save their ownership and operation of the picture theatre and that plaintiff was a patron therein when the fire occurred. Plaintiff's demand was rejected and he appealed.

On trial of the case the true origin of the fire was revealed by defendants' witnesses. It was to no extent traceable to the causes alleged by plaintiff. The film was a new one. The machinery and equipment employed to project the picture are said to be of standard make. The operator, from experience and training, is competent. A hard shelled bug, attracted by the light of the machine (while those of the theatre were out), got into the booth which houses the machine and equipment, and, despite energetic efforts of the operator to expel or kill it, made its way into the machine and quickly descended into the aperture plate. This caused the film to fly off of the sprocket that pulled it. The derangement of the set-up evidently brought the film closer to or in direct contact with the heat generated to project the picture, and the fire started. It was extinguished within two minutes, but not before two hundred feet of the film were consumed. The flames flared up, but it is not made certain that they extended through the port and picture holes beyond the walls of the booth. However, the fire or its reflection was seen by some of the patrons in the balcony, and the alarm was given. There was instantly a mad rush for the exits. Plaintiff's right foot was caught under a seat and, either from his own frantic efforts to disengage it or by being run over by other patrons, he suffered a not serious injury of the foot. He was seated several feet in front of and below the booth.

Plaintiff has abandoned entirely his original theory of the cause of the fire and has adopted as correct the version thereof advanced by defendants. He contends, however, that it was the operator's duty to have stopped the machine immediately on discovery of the bug's presence in the booth and to have kept it stopped until the intruding bug had been killed or expelled; that his failure so to do amounts to actionable negligence which was the proximate cause of the fire, the consequent stampede and injury to him.

Never before did a bug perform or cause damage in this theatre as did the one now discussed. Such a happening was not expected nor anticipated by the owner or operator, and, therefore, no special precaution had been taken to guard against it. It does appear that bugs occasionally do enter the booth and buzz about the light.

Defendants' booth, to meet legal requirements, is constructed of reinforced concrete, eight inches thick. This sort of construction is required because of the highly inflammable substance of which the film is made. Its constant exposure to the intense heat necessary to project the picture continuously renders it liable to ignition. It is shown to be not uncommon for films of this character to catch on fire, but when it occurs within...