Wometco Theatres Corp. v. Rath
| Decision Date | 10 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-454,59-454 |
| Citation | 123 So.2d 472 |
| Parties | WOMETCO THEATRES CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, d/b/a Miracle Theatre, Appellant, v. Julius RATH, as Administrator of the Estate of Juliana Rath, and Julius Rath, individually, Apppellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wicker & Smith and Stephen C. McAliley, Miami, for appellant.
Harry L. Bassett, Miami Beach, for appellee.
The defendant has appealed from an adverse judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in a negligence action. The complaint alleged damages for personal injuries, sustained by Juliana Rath while in defendant's theatre, occasioned by the actions of a suspected child molester, who struck her while attempting to flee from the theatre.
The record reveals that an usher employed by the defendant had become suspicious that a patron of the theatre was a child molester, which suspicion was relayed to the defendant's house manager. The house manager then seated himself behind this patron whose actions appeared to confirm the usher's suspicions. The house manager in the presence of the head usher the patron to step into the lobby to answer some questions, whereupon the patron lunged forward, the house manager grabbed him by the arm and a struggle ensued. The patron was subdued and was being accompanied up the aisle toward the lobby when he suddenly broke away, brushing past the plaintiff and knocking her against a seat and onto the floor. The house manager testified that he had on previous occasions investigated the alleged activities of suspected child molesters, but had never before, in fourteen years' experience, been met with violence. He further testified that he had not anticipated and had no idea that the suspected molester would attempt to flee.
On appeal, the determinative question raised by the appellant is whether or not a theatre is liable to its patrons for the negligent action of another patron.
It is a general rule that the operator or owner of an entertainment attraction such as a motion picture theatre is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons. See Central Theatres v. Wilkinson, 154 Fla. 589, 18 So.2d 755; Rainbow Enterprises v. Thompson, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 208, 55 A.L.R.2d 861. However, it has been held that an operator or owner of such an establishment owes to his patrons the duty to exercise due care to protect them from assault by other patrons and the operator or owner may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colon v. Twitter, Inc.
...foreseeable, the original negligence may be found to be the proximate cause of the damage sustained."); and Wometco Theatres Corp. v. Rath , 123 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960) ("Mere knowledge that a person may be a child molester is not knowledge that he would become violent, nor is it ......
-
Shaffer v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, a Subsidiary of Burns Intern. Sec. Services, a Subsidiary of Baker Industries, Inc.
...Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 221 So.2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. dismissed, 235 So.2d 294 (Fla.1970); Wometco Theatres Corp. v. Rath, 123 So.2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). But see Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So.2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 402 So.2d 609 (F......
-
Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc.
...present case is unlike Graham v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 240 So.2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), and Wometco Theatres Corporation v. Rath, 123 So.2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), where the violent consequences of a foreseeable intervening criminal act are not foreseeable. 2 Nor is the pr......
-
Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 1828
...specific supervision and a reasonable opportunity to exercise it. Elmore v. Sones, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 59; Wometco Theatres Corporation v. Rath, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 472. Otherwise, the operator would be in the position of an insuror of the safety of his In the present case there are......