Court Opinion

ID: 9645174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:15:15.318063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:32.653960
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion bt
Mr. Chief Justice Bell :
I would grant a Judgment N.O.V., or at least a new trial.
In order to reach its conclusion, the Majority first change, by necessary implication, and in practical effect ignore the principle that a possessor of land is not an insurer. Moreover, the prior disturbances occurred in another part of the theatre, and the theatre had three rampmen to police or attempt to police the theatre. Furthermore, the Majority then let the jury guess (1) what warning should have been given, and (2) how any warning would have prevented this unlawful and criminal act of rowdy, undisciplined children, and (3) what additional protection the defendants should have supplied.
For each and all of these reasons, I dissent.