Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/315/315mass732.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:37:34+00:00

Document:
EDITH ROSEN vs. BOSTON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA, INC.
Present: FIELD, C.J., LUMMUS, DOLAN, RONAN, & WILKINS, JJ.
Evidence warranted a finding that one who had entered a theatre after paying an admission charge had the status of an invitee when, walking past the second seat in a row of two seats on his way to put his coat upon a seat in a row in front, he fell and was injured because of an abrupt drop in the floor level at the farther side of the second seat, beyond which for a few feet there was at the lower level a "dead-end" unoccupied space narrowing to a few inches between the row in front and a pedestal.
A finding of negligence of the proprietor of a theatre toward a patron was warranted by evidence that, at a poorly lighted place in the theatre which the patron was invited to use, there was an abrupt drop of ten and one half inches in the floor level, whereby the patron fell and was injured, that the proprietor had known of such condition for months, and that there was nothing in the character or appearance of that place to suggest the existence of such condition to the patron.
TORT. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated July 6, 1943.
There was a finding for the plaintiff by Donovan, J. A report was ordered dismissed by the Appellate Division, and the defendant appealed.
D. D. Leahy, for the defendant.
L. Schlesinger, for the plaintiff.
finding that the defendant was negligent or that the plaintiff's injury was caused by a defect of which the defendant knew or should have known. The defendant appealed from a decision of the Appellate Division dismissing its report.
The plaintiff was a business visitor of the defendant, which conducted a place of public entertainment, and the latter owed her the duty of keeping that portion of its premises which she was invited to use in a reasonably safe condition and to warn her by means of barriers, signs or otherwise of any danger that she might encounter in accepting the defendant's invitation, which was either known or should have been known to the defendant and of which she had no knowledge or could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge. Tovey v. G. E. Lothrop Theatres Co. 288 Mass. 346. Shanney v. Boston Madison Square Garden Corp. 296 Mass. 168. Correira v. Atlantic Amusement Co. Inc. 302 Mass. 81. McGillivray v. Eramian, 309 Mass. 430. Matthews v. L & L Enterprises, Inc. 314 Mass. 538.
there was this difference in the level of the floor. Currier v. Boston Music Hall Association, 135 Mass. 414. Ginns v. C. T. Sherer Co. 219 Mass. 18. Grogan v. O'Keeffe's Inc. 267 Mass. 189. Kennedy v. Cherry & Webb Co., Lowell, 267 Mass. 217. McCarthy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 292 Mass. 526. Lombardi v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 303 Mass. 417. Barttro v. Watertown Square Theatre, Inc. 309 Mass. 223.
The defendant points out that the plaintiff could not go beyond the marble pedestal and that the place where she was hurt was a "dead end" and contends that the plaintiff was not invited by the defendant to use it. There was, however, nothing about the physical aspects of the place to induce a patron to believe that it was not apparently designed for her use or that she could not properly travel over the place to put her coat on one of the seats in the row in front. Many occasions might be mentioned where a patron would be likely to use this space. It might be a convenient and a natural place to stand while removing or putting on an overcoat or outer wrap or for one to go to converse with a friend who was occupying a seat the back of which abutted this space, and it would be necessary to go there to pick up an article which fell from one of the seats in the row in front. There was nothing about the appearance, construction or location of that space that indicated that it was not open, available and adapted for the use of the defendant's patrons -- at least a trier of facts could so find. Whether the plaintiff in travelling over this place at the time of the accident was acting within the scope of the defendant's invitation was a question of fact for the trial judge. Gilbert v. Nagle, 118 Mass. 278. Wills v. Taylor, 193 Mass. 113. Marston v. Reynolds, 211 Mass. 590. Blood v. Ansley, 231 Mass. 438. Serota v. Salmansohn, 256 Mass. 224. Denny v. Riverbank Court Hotel Co. 282 Mass. 176. Palmer v. Boston Penny Savings Bank, 301 Mass. 540. Skidd v. Quattrochi, 304 Mass. 438. O'Brien v. Harvard Restaurant & Liquor Co. Inc. 310 Mass. 491.
There was no error in denying the defendant's requests for rulings.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.