Travis v. Metropolitan Theatres Corp.

California Court of Appeal May 4, 1949 No. Civ. 16923Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding of negligence where a theater proprietor failed to discover and remove a dangerous substance that had remained on the floor long enough to form a crust.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to establish the negligence of a theater proprietor for a patron's slip and fall injury.
Whether the duration of a dangerous condition on the floor is a question of fact for the jury to determine.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence in the instant case was sufficient to warrant a finding of appellant’s negligence not only because of its failure to maintain a vigilant watch over its premises but also by virtue of the fact that the substance had actually remained on the floor long enough to form a crust on its surface.”

“Whether the condition existed long enough to be discovered is for the jury to determine.”

[666]

MOORE, P. J.

The question for decision is whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to establish the negligence of the proprietor of a place of public amusement, the patron having suffered personal injuries resulting from a fall caused by a slippery, repulsively odoriferous substance on the floor.

Respondent was a pay customer at appellant’s theater. It opens regularly at 9 o’clock a. m. and remains open until after ' 4 a. m. of the following day. The premises are cleaned and inspected once daily, and that occurs in the morning before opening.

Shortly after 1 a. m. on November 1, 1946, respondent entered the theater with her escort, the witness Pike. No ushers being on duty, the couple remained at the head of an aisle in order to accustom their eyes to the darkness. Unaccompanied, they proceeded toward the stage and entered between two rows of seats. In front of the second seat plaintiff’s foot encountered a deposit of vomit on the floor. She slipped, fell, and was injured. After inspecting the substance with the aid of a lighted match, Mr. Pike assisted her to the foyer and reported the accident to Mr. Erich, the manager, after which the couple departed.

There is no dispute that the substance which caused the fall was the regurgitated contents of a human stomach. Erich testified that after the accident he and the witness Jeffers cleaned up the filth. It is not suggested that an employee of the house caused the deposit to be made or that respondent or her companion did so. The sole contention on appeal is that the condition did not exist for such length of time that a reasonably prudent person would have discovered it in time to remove it prior to respondent’s arrival.

A theater such as that here involved invites the public to patronize it and large audiences gather there and occupy its auditorium to be entertained. They have no suspicion that defective carpets or furniture or offensive deposits on the floor will imperil their safety. Since she was an invitee of appellant, respondent’s rights to redress are governed by the rule that pertains to disputes growing out of that relation. While a proprietor is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons

(Mautino

Travis v. Metropolitan Theatres Corp.

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief