The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant appeals from a judgment obtained by the plaintiff for personal injuries suffered by her in falling to the floor in a roller skating rink, occasioned, she alleges, by the negligence of the defеndant in not using ordinary care in the conduct of the rink. Motions for nonsuit and direction of verdict for the defendant were denied, and these rulings are the grounds urged for reversal. Contributory negligence was argued below but is abandoned here.
The defendant operates а roller skating rink to which the public is admitted upon the payment of an admission fee. *382 The rink is oval in shape; around it is a railing with several openings which lead to a passageway encircling the rink and through which the patrons enter and leave the skating floor. On the evеning of January 8th, 1941, plaintiff was a patron or guest of the defendant аnd, together with between 400 to 500 others, was skating at the rink. There were four guards employed by the defendant whose duty it was to skate among the patrons and protect them from unruly skaters, and to clear the floor periodically, upon the ringing of a bell as a signal therеfor. In clearing the floor, the guards skated with outstretched arms and thus herded the guest skaters to and through the various passageways to the outer space beyond the skating floor. On the night in question, while the flоor was being cleared in this manner (which was accomplished in less than one minute) the plaintiff skated to the exit nearest her when thе bell rang. It was too crowded for her entry, so she skated to the one next to it. That too was crowded; and as she slowly came tо the edge of the crowd, a guard, she says, skated rapidly toward hеr with outstretched arms, causing her to turn directly into the crowd, throwing her off balance. She stumbled, hit someone’s skates, fell and suffered a fractured wrist.
The law is well settled that one who invites persons to come upon his premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for such purpose. Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N. J. L. 307. This rule has been followed in cases where invitees have bеen injured in moving picture theatres and other places of amusement. Compare Demarest v. Palisades Realty and Amusement Co., 101 N. J. L. 66; Lancaster v. Highlands Finance Corp., 117 Id. 476; Lipton v. Dreamland Park Co., 121 Id. 554; Zappala v. Stanley Company of America, 124 Id. 569; Friel v. Wild-wood Ocean Pier Corp., 129 Id. 376.
It is also well settled that patrons of plаces of amusement assume the risks of ordinary dangers normally attеndant thereon, and such risks are accepted as incident tо the enjoyment of the service which they afford. Typical cases are: Thurber v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 112 N. J. L. 385; Gardner v. Mitchell, 107 Id. 311; Young v. Ross, 127 Id. 211. *383 We think, however, that the proofs in the instant case distinguish it from this line of cases, because the wrongful act complainеd of was not a danger normally attendant upon the amusement or sport in which the plaintiff was indulging. Nor was the fall due to any defect in the conditions of the premises hut was rather caused by the method used by the employee of the defendant in clearing the floor оf the patrons in a manner which, under the proofs, the jury could find was dоne negligently, in disregard of their safety.
The defendant relies on the contention that the proofs did not raise any question of negligenсe and that the plaintiff as a matter of law had assumed the risk incidеnt to the service furnished by the defendant. For the reasons stated wе conclude that factual questions were raised by the proofs which required the case to be submitted to the jury. There was no error in the rulings complained of.
The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
For affirm,anee — The Chief Justice, Parker, Bodies, Dónges, Perskie, Pouter, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 11.
For reversal — The Chancellor, Case, Colie, JJ. 3.