(Download) "Mccartan v. Park Butte Theater Co." by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

July 23, 2021

eBook details

Title: Mccartan v. Park Butte Theater Co.
Author : Supreme Court of Montana
Release Date : January 18, 1936
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 66 KB

Description

Personal Injuries ? Theaters ? Fall Over Step Protruding into Aisle ? Duty of Owner Toward Patrons ? Contributory Negligence ? Assumption of Risk ? Conflict in Evidence ? Excessive Verdicts ? Rule. Personal Injuries ? Theaters ? Duty of Operator as to Safety of Patrons. 1. Operators of motion picture theaters must use ordinary care to have the premises reasonably safe, and to warn its patrons of any hidden or lurking danger thereon. - Page 343 Same ? Motion Picture Theater ? Patron Falling Over Step Protruding into Aisle ? Negligence on Part of Owner ? Conflict in Evidence ? Matter for Determination of Jury. 2. Where a patron of a moving picture theater was injured by falling over a step protruding into an aisle while being conducted to a seat by an usher, the evidence was conflicting as to the manner in which the place was lighted, whether the step was in total darkness or could be seen, and whether the usher turned his flashlight upon it so that plaintiff could have seen it if she had been looking, the question whether there was negligence on the part of the defendant owner was properly left to the jurys determination. Same ? Contributory Negligence ? Assumption of Risk ? Pleading. 3. Contributory negligence and assumption of risk, in a personal injury action, are matters of affirmative defense and must be pleaded to be available to defendant, unless they appear from the complaint or unless plaintiffs own case raises a presumption of their existence. Same ? Appeal and Error ? When Verdict of Jury not to be Disturbed. 4. Where the jury, in a personal injury case, on conflicting evidence determined the issues in favor of plaintiff and there was sufficient evidence to sustain its conclusion, the supreme court on appeal will not disturb the verdict. Same ? Excessive Verdicts ? Rule. 5. Unless the result of the jurys deliberations in reaching a verdict in a personal injury action in favor of plaintiff is such as to shock the conscience and understanding, i.e., where the amount of damages awarded cannot be reconciled with a conscientious interpretation of the evidence or a rational understanding of the facts as a whole, it must be accepted as conclusive on appeal, as against the contention that it is excessive and was given under the influence of passion or prejudice. Same ? Excessive Verdict ? Case at Bar ? Verdict Held not Excessive Under Last Rule Above. 6. Verdict for $3,500, awarded a widow, supporting three minor children by sewing, for a severe sprained ankle suffered in falling over a step protruding into an aisle in a darkened picture threater, though perhaps unusually liberal, held not so excessive as to shock the conscience and understanding, within the meaning of rule 5 above, it appearing inter alia from her testimony that the injury made it difficult for her to operate a sewing machine, depriving her of her livelihood, was unable to do housework, etc.