Wilson v. Iberville Amusement Co., Inc
| Decision Date | 13 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 16979 |
| Citation | 181 So. 817 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | WILSON v. IBERVILLE AMUSEMENT CO., Inc |
St Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Jos Rosenberg, of New Orleans, for appellee.
This is a suit for $ 300 for damages for physical injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff on December 14, 1937 when, as a spectator in the Palace Theatre, she was knocked down and trampled upon during a stampede caused by an alarm of fire. The Iberville Amusement Company, Inc., proprietor of the Palace Theatre in which the accident occurred, which is made defendant, denied liability averring that its theatre was equipped with the most modern and fireproof devices, and that it was free from any negligence in the premises.
There was judgment below in plaintiff's favor in the sum of $ 200 and defendant has appealed. Plaintiff has answered the appeal asking that the award be increased to the amount prayed for.
It is conceded that plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was a patron of the Palace Theatre and that during the performance someone in the audience shouted "fire" and "fight", and that as plaintiff endeavored to get into the aisle she was knocked down and trampled upon and sustained injuries to her back, hips and head. It is also admitted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has application with the result that defendant bears the burden of proving that it was without fault. Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Company et al., 127 La. 309, 53 So. 575, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 976. Defendant claims, however, to have sustained this burden and thus to have overcome the presumption of negligence.
The evidence shows that the projection room, in which the fire originated, was built in accordance with the specifications of the Building Code of the City of New Orleans as established by Ordinance No. 9357, C. C.S., section 101. The projection machine, itself, according to the uncontradicted testimony, was of the most modern type and in perfect condition and such as is used in the best motion picture theatres. The operator in charge of the projection room was an experienced operator. The films used were obtained from distributors handling the best productions. The particular film in use on the night of the fire was obtained from the Universal Film Exchange in the City of New Orleans. It was inspected by the operator before use by what is known as the "hand wind method", by which is meant that the operator passes his hand over the film as he rewinds it. There were a number of splices in the film and some of the sprocket holes were worn necessitating patching. The film was not a "first run reel". It had been used a number of times previously, but it was said to be in good condition. According to the testimony, the arc light which is used to project the image upon the screen, generates intense heat, so much so, that if the normal speed at which the film is run before the light, ninety feet per minute, is retarded by more than one-half, the film catches fire. The projector is equipped with automatic shutters operated by a fuse, the melting of which closes the shutters and keeps the heat from the film. On the night of the accident, seven hundred feet of the film which was being exhibited caught fire and was burned. The smoke, if not the flame, being visible to the audience, alarmed the patrons causing one or more persons to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
94-2194 La.App. 4 Cir. 7/26/95, Jones v. Hyatt Corp. of Delaware
...The innkeeper's position vis-a-vis his guests is similar to that of a common carrier toward its passengers. Wilson v. Iberville Amusement Co., 181 So. 817 (Orl.App.Ct.1938). Thus, a guest is entitled to a high degree of care and protection. See Galland v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 3......
-
Boucher v. Paramount-Richards Theatres
... ... or other place of public amusement, in order to bring himself ... within the requirement of the general rule ... business. See Wilson Iberville Amusement Co., La.App., 181 ... So. 817 and Brady v. Avenue ... ...
-
Nordmann v. National Hotel Company
...Co., La.App. 2d Cir. 1962, 146 So.2d 260, 262; Miller v. Derusa, La.App. 1st Cir. 1955, 77 So.2d 748, 749; Wilson v. Iberville Amusement Co., La.App. Orl.1938, 181 So. 817, 818. 2 See dictum in Wilson v. Iberville Amusement Co., supra n. 1; 43 C.J.S. Innkeepers § 3 Posey v. United States, 5......
-
Davenport v. Nixon, 82
...2970, supra. The innkeeper's position vis-a-vis his guests is similar to that of a common carrier toward its passengers. Wilson v. Iberville Amusement Co., 181 So. 817 (Orl. [La]. App.Ct.1938). Thus, a guest is entitled to a high degree of care and protection. See Galland v. New Orleans Pub......