*1 NASH, by his father David Lee Roy friend, Roy Nash and L. and next Appellants, Nash, individually, L. MANAGEMENT
STANLEY WARNER trading as foreign corporation, CORP., a Washington, Friedlander, D. Blaine P. Appellee. Tivoli C., with Friedlander whom Mark P. No. 2622. D. Friedlander, Washington, Mark Jr., P. C., brief, appellants. were on the Appeals for Municipal for the Court District of Columbia. C., Washington, Clague, William T. D. Sept. Argued Washington, Swingle, whom Allan C. 16, 1960. Decided Nov. C, appellee. brief, D. was on for QUINN, HOOD and
Before Judges, (Chief Judge, Re- and CAYTON tired) sitting by designation under Code (b>. 11-776 CAYTON, Acting Judge. attending While the minor picture a motion was assaulted patrons. He his father sued theatre for At the close plaintiffs’ case defendant theatre moved for that there was proof The trial court denied stood on the mo- the motion and defendant tion and offered no evidence. The court took the case under advisement and called briefs, and later ordered That decision is here for review. Sunday Nash, afternoon David
On a
plaintiff,
companions
two
minor
went with
Theater. He said the audi-
to the Tivoli
constantly moving;
ence
loud and
“was
ushers,” that
he saw no
after he had
for about
been in the theatre
three hours
half he
struck about the
and a
head
by an unknown assailant and
and shoulders
floor;
while
still on the
knocked to
struck him with
floor another
him;
stick and kicked
lobby
reported
helped
where he
him to the
ticket-taker,
to a
but that he
the assaults
what was said.
not remember
did
thirteen-year-old companion
plain-
A
boys attempt
that he saw some
testified
tiff
*2
239
or
danger,
knowledge
exit based on
of
advance
through an
to sneak into the theatre
duty
stated)
But see
knowledge.
to have such
not
ushers,” (number
and that “the
Hampshire
Da-
The
on
Hawkins v. Maine & New
prevented it;
assault
the
that later
an
Co.,
1,
aters
In
132
164
described
Me.
A. 628.
he
place,
vid
which
Nash took
Op
other
witness
Rawson v. Massachusetts
way
This
the
did.
same
David
220,
erating Co.,
to
558,
328 Mass.
105 N.E.2d
ticket-taker
identified a Mr. Pratt as the
he
907,
29
lax
management
hut
A.L.R.2d
was
reported,
the
whom
the incident
in curbing
several
continuing
antics of
wild
could not
recall
the conversation
youths,
patron
“did
and
and
intervened
Pratt
when a
point he
that
Pratt. At one
said
ad-
asked
De
quiet,
them to be
he was struck.
nothing,” but on cross-examination
re
have
fendant
effort to
was held liable because it was
an
mitted
Pratt did make
that
failing
miss for an
boys
or assailants.
hour and
half in
the
identify the
injuries
stop
disorder,
to
except
discover and
the
which
testimony,
This
for that of
prompted
patron
the evidence
the
to
damages,
and
all
act.
constituted
in the case.
ours,
Dealing with cases like
where there
has
unexpected
been a 'sudden and
assault
the
question is whether
Our
patron by another,
gen
one
the cases
liability was
holding
that no
erred
erally
management
hold
not
when
is
liable
the
that
general rule
It
the
established.
is
reasonably
it is
anticipate
unable
to
rea
exercise
operator
theatre must
of a
such
happen. Among
an assault would
as
protect
patrons
to
its
sonable care
such cases are Worcester v.
En
Theatrical
had
operator
patrons, if
saults
the
terprises Corp., Cal.App.2d 116,
28
82 P.2d
natu
would
which
knowledge of conduct
68; Napper v. Kenwood Drive-In Theatre
rea
might
if it
rally
injury, or
result in
Co.,
270;
Ky., 310 S.W.2d
Hart Hercu
v.
See
sonably
anticipated an assault.
have
Corp.,
537,
les
App.Div.
Theatre
258
17
913;
Am.
911,
Annotation,
52
29 A.L.R.2d
441;
Cox,
N.Y.S.2d
Whitfield v.
189 Va.
etc.,
52;
The
Theaters,
86
Jur.,
§
C.J.S.
219,