Central Theatres, Inc. v. Wilkinson, (1944)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 7
Judges: PER CURIAM:
Attorneys: Henderson, Franklin, Starnes Holt and Parker Holt, for appellant.
Roy D. Stubbs and A.F. Whitney, for appellees.
Filed: Jun. 09, 1944
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: One night the appellees purchased tickets for admission to the Ritz Theater in Fort Myers and took their seats while a motion picture was in progress. They sat nearer the screen than the rear of the theater or, as one of them related, "about two-thirds way down as we came into the theatre . . . fairly close to the exit sign" and "a little forward" of the door. While they were intent upon the picture something suddenly struck the appellee Henriette Wilkinson in the eye causing such severe pain th
Summary: One night the appellees purchased tickets for admission to the Ritz Theater in Fort Myers and took their seats while a motion picture was in progress. They sat nearer the screen than the rear of the theater or, as one of them related, "about two-thirds way down as we came into the theatre . . . fairly close to the exit sign" and "a little forward" of the door. While they were intent upon the picture something suddenly struck the appellee Henriette Wilkinson in the eye causing such severe pain tha..
More
I am unable to concur in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice THOMAS because as I see the record no actionable negligence is made to appear. The injury was not one which could have been reasonably foreseen. The air-rifle shot which injured plaintiff was put in motion by one who was outside the building and over whom the management of the theatre is not shown to have had any control. The record affirmatively shows that the door through the opening of which the shot passed before striking the plaintiff was closed and fastened just prior to the accident but was opened just at the time of the accident by a trespasser. It is not shown that the trespasser had ever before so opened the door.
Our sympathies are aroused by the unfortunate results of the action of irresponsible boys playing in the public-way, but I fail to see that the defendant was responsible either for
the shooting of the air rifle in the public way or for, the opening of the door by the trespasser, or for the result to the plaintiff. So, I think the judgment should be reversed.
CHAPMAN, J., concurs.
Source: CourtListener
