DAMAGES AWARDED

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 38, 13 August 1935, Page 3

DAMAGES AWARDED

ACCIDENT IN-THEATRE

UNSECURED LINOLEUM

The tripping of two women on an unsecured piece of linoleum an the passageway of a city theatre was the subject of a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when he awarded damages totalling £55 Is. The Magistrate said there was no evidence of lack of care on the part of the plaintiffs, and the picture-going public were not expected to wend their way to the auditorium with eyes glued to the floor, looking out for traps.

The plaintiffs were Mrs. Florence Dodds and Miss Vesta Fordham (niece of Mrs. Dodds), who attended the Rex Theatre on May 3 last. Miss Fordham, who was slightly ahead of Mrs. Dodds in the passageway, caught her foot against the end of a strip of linoleum that formed part of the floor covering. She fell and injured herself, and her foot caused the end of the linoleum to turn up, and Mrs. Dodds, whose foot hit the turned-up end, also fell and injured herself. The defendant company, Kemball Theatres, Ltd., denied liability for the injuries the plaintiffs suffered, and said there was no breach of any duty it owed to them.

"I find as a fact that there was no negligence or want of care on the part of the plaintiffs," said the Magistrate. "The' decorations, mirrors (and what is reflected from them) and posters within the entrance hall to a picture theatre are there to be looked at. The picture-going public is not expected to warily wend its way to the auditorium, eyes glued upon the floor, looking out for trip-traps. It is entitled to assume that the floor coverings have been properly laid, and that nothing likely to trip the unwary exists.

"It is true that the linoleum had been on the floor for over five years before the plaintiffs were injured, and that this was the first accident. In my ■opinion, that is unimportant, because each time the ends are lifted for sweeping purposes it is possible that the positions of the ends might be different—ever so slightly—when they are replaced on the floor. Conceivably, also, nobody's foot previously to the accident came down, moved forward, or started to lift in exactly the same way as did Miss Fordham's foot.

"An unfastened, overlapping piece of linoleum is always a potential danger to any person walking towards the exposed edge. It would not be seen ordinarily—especially in a long passageway artificially lighted. ...

"In my opinion the potential danger to persons using the passageway from the overlapping, unfastened end of linoleum should have been known to the defendant company. The only way to ensure safety was by fastening the ends to* the floor with each end flush alongside the other. The defendant company's omission to make the junction of the two ends as little dangerous as could reasonably be was a breach of its duty to the plaintiffs, and as they were not guilty of contributory negligence they are entitled to recover damages for the injuries they received."

Mrs. Dodd's damages were fixed at £13 10s, and Miss Fordham's at £41 11s.