EAGLE’S MISTAKE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17179, 24 October 1923, Page 1

EAGLE’S MISTAKE.

JURY’S VERDICT UPSET. JUDGMENT IN GRAND THEATRE CASE. His Honor Mr Justice Sim to-day upset the verdict of a jury in a, case in which Robert Eagle, a slaughterman, claimed £750 damages from the New Zealand Picture Supplies. Ltd. on account of an accident in the Grand Theatre in August. Eagle, thinking that he was going into a lavatory, opened a door in the theatre and fell down a staircase into a cellar used for a dynamo and other machinery. He lost an eye, and sustained other injuries. The jury answered all issues in favour of Eagle, and awarded him £375 damoges. Counsel for defendant moved for judgment for the company, and his Honor to-day gave judgment for the company with costs according to scale. His Honor said that it was the defendant’s duty to take reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from suffering damage from unusual danger, of which the defendant knew, or ought to have known. That duty did not- extend to the whole theatre, but only to the parts to which the plaintiff might reasonably be expected to go. in the belief. reasonably entertained, that he was entitled, or invited, to do so. It was clear that the plaintiff was not entitled to go through the door. As. however, there was nothing in the way of a notice or warning on the door, he might have been justified in opening it in the expectation of finding that it led to a urinal. But when he

found the place in darkness he could not reasonably suppose that it was u urinal. He ought to have realised at once that it was part of the theatre into which he had no right to go and he ought to have turned back and sought elsewhere for a urinal. Instead of turning back lie went on, and fell down the staircase. When he elected to go into the- darkness, he ceased to be an invitee. He became at best a licensee, and had to take the premises as he found them. He was not entitled to complain of any concealed clanger, as a licensee who walked in darkness, where he could not see whether there was danger or not. walked at his own peril. In the circumstances, the defendant did not owe any duty to ] the plaintiff. “There was not, in my opinion, any legal reason for the defendant ‘inviting’ tiro plaintiff to go inf-o a place into which the defendant had no interest nor desire that plainiff should go.” bis Honor concluded. “.As. at the close of the whole case there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, the prop>er course. I think, is t-o enter judgment for the defendant. The case of Farley v. Loughnan is sufficient authority for adopting this Mr F. S. Wilding appeared for Eagle, and Mr O. T. J. Alpers, with him Mr P- P. J. Amodeo for the company.