LEGAL ASPECT

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 50, 28 August 1934, Page 10

LEGAL ASPECT

ENTERTAINMENT RISKS

EXPANSIVE FIELD

THEATRES AND SPORTS

Very wide boundaries -were found by | Mr. \V. E. Leicester for a, discourse he gave recently to the New Zealand Insurance Institute on the subject of the legal aspect, of entertainment rislis. He said he was appalled by the expansiveness of the field and asked to be excused, if, as he brightly suggested, what he had to say within the short time a-t his disposal appeared in the nature of a Jack Payne's medley upon entertainment themes. After outlining in an entertaining manner forms of entertainment which existed in early times (a theme lending itself to bright treatment of which full use was made), Mr. Leicester dealt with the subject under the headings of (a) the risks attached to places of amusement such as theatres, cinemas, etc.; and (b) the risks attached to sports and sports meetings, stressing, however, that these were matters of personal choice and were not put forward as in any way being exclusive or all-embracing..' THEATRES. Before dealing with some of the principles underlying the conduct of places of amusement, Mr. Leicester pointed out that those managing a theatre were not under any obligation to grant admission. A theatre stood on a wholly different footing from a public inn or public service such-, as a railway. A theatre might sell or refuse to sell tickets at its option, and the public could not compel, it to grant admission. "The most important-matter for consideration in relation to cinema theatres, and like places of entertainment," said Mr. Leicester, "is the legal liability of the- management to the members of the public who come upon the promises. This legal liability varies according to whether the person is an invitee who may be defined as a person who conies upon the premises with the invitation of the occupier and who for the most part pays for admission; or whether he is a licensee with an interest, who comes upon the premises on a matter or business of common interest to himself and the occupier; or whether.he'is'a bare licensee, a person who has permission to come upon the premises but who has no interest or business in common with the licensor; or whether he is a trespasser. Where a person pays money to enter the premises, as in the case, of purchasing a ticket, there, is an implied warranty arising <tit of -the contract between the parties that the premises- iire reasonably fit for this purpose. It cannot be challenged that the proprietors or' a! place of entertainment owe to the.invitee a duty to take reasonable care to see that he is not exposed to unusual or unexpected danger of which the proprietor knows or ought to know, and these- dangers against which the proprietor must protect the invitee can be ; more or less hidden1 and not necessarily obvious." Reference was made by. Mr. Leicester to a number of authoritative eases on this branch of his address, the circumstances giving rise to which and the decisions of the Courts which heard them being particularly interesting. To the bare licensee, continued Mr. Leicester, the occupier of premises i owed no duty except that he must warn j him against any traps or concealed dangers of which, as occupier, he actually knew. In. other words a bare licensee had to take- the premises as he found them, and this difference of legal liability might 'not be -without its consequences in the case of a person who attended a theatrical or other entertainment with . a complimentary ticket or without payment since if he is not there on any matter of business or common interest, he might be a bare licenseo who could claim no higher duty of care than that which, had been indicated. Bo far as trespassers were concerned, any person who went upon the premises of another without the lattcr's permission express or implied, or against his will, is -a trespasser to whom the occupier owed no duty whatsoever to make the premises safe or to give any warning. The occupier, however, must not deliberately create a danger or do any other wilful act which is calculated to injure even a trespasser. PERFORMERS AND EMPLOYEES. Two New Zealand cases were referred to to illustrate another phase, that in regard to people going to parts of a theatre to which they had no right to go. Dealing with tho responsibility of the management towards their performers and other employees on their premises, Mr. Leicester said the management were under a duty to have apparatus in a safe condition and would be liable in damages for personal injuries sustained by such persons as a result of their negligence. In respect of film companies and picture houses there might be unusual types of accident for which no liability could be said to exist. For example, the other day John Dillinger, ranked as "plus one" amongst the Chicago gunmen, elected to see Clark Gable and William Powell acting in "Manhattan Melodrama." As he came out of the theatre the police riddled him with' machine-gun bullets, but in respect of this accident, if it could be politely described as such, neither the cinema, Mr. Powell, nor Mr. Gable could be held under any rev sponsibility. SPORTS MEETINGS. Discussing the- question of ' sports and sports meetings, Mr. Leicester said that hero were found variations in'the question of liability, those variations being concerned, with tho ques-tion-as to whether the injured'person is a spectator who has paid for admission or a participant1 or a bystander.' Some writers on this subject had expressed the -view that the spectator assumed the risks naturally incident (o the degree of Ganger attaching to the particular performance that ho wont to watch, but, he. doubted whether this is an accurate statement, as in many instances the obligation to. insure the safety of the spectator arose put of. the contract with him. Again, Mr. Leicester cited a number of interesting cases. As to tho question of participants, the same warranty of safety was not implied in a case whore the public took part in the performance. They had no right to expect as high a degree of safety as whoro they paid for admission as spectators. They were entitled to expect that all known dangers would be guarded against, but the factor of safety is necessarily not as high because the element of danger is held, out to them to titivate their palate and induce them to participate. In the liability here there is an element corresponding with the rule in tort that the person who took a risk,could not complain of an injury arising out of it—a rule that was usually illustrated by the instance, of the boxer"who received bodily injury in the course of a fight in which he consented to take part. The illustrations Mr. Leicester gave were taken from the risks of those exciting devices attached to sideshows, carnivals, and places of that sort. In particluar, golf had given rise to several interesting legal caws. All over tho world insurance offices now offered si special policy in respect of golf liabilities, and no doubt

policies similar in their nature could be obtained by cricket, hockey, rackets, and other clubs. In a Scots case was to be found the fullest statement of the liabilities incurred, by, playing games. Lord Young in that case said: "When people engage iv a game involving risk, or in a' game generally safe, but in which accidents may happen, every player taking part in ittakes on himself the risks incident-to being a player, and he will have no remedy for any injury ho may receive in the course of it, unless there has been some undue violence or unfair play on the part of some of the others." Mr. Leicester referred to several golf cases. In the case of accidents to bystanders, he said, there could be no suggestion of contractual liability: this class clearly indicated a liability arising iji tort.