Court Opinion

ID: 9766911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:02:32.070511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:27.151110
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting). I dissent: I am of the view that a question of fact was made for the jury as to whether the appellant, under the existing conditions, exercised reasonable care to protect its patrons from assault while on the premises. That the Salater boy was a patron and was injured by an assault while on the premises, is thoroughly established. The Salater boy went to the aid of a white lady and her children and thereby incurred the ire of some Negro rowdies, who injured the Salater boy. The Twin City Amusement Company leased from the Arkansas Livestock Association for a “rock and roll show” on the night of April 21, 1961, the Barton Coliseum building and streets adjacent thereto. The duty of the appellant as the operator of the entertainment is clear. In 52 Am. Jur. p. 291, ‘ ‘ Theaters, Shows, Exhibitions, Etc. ’ ’ §47, the rule as to the degree of care required of the appellant in this case is stated: “It is the general rule, of almost universal acceptance, that an owner or proprietor of a theater or public amusement is bound to exercise a degree of ordinary and reasonable care for the safety and protection of his patrons—the degree of care that would be exercised by an ordinarily careful and prudent man in the same position and circumstance.” In §52 of the same article the holdings are summarized: “Liability for Assault of Patron; Acts or Conduct of Third Persons.—One who invites the public to his theater or public amusement owes to all persons who accept the invitation the duty of reasonable care to protect them from assault, abuse, or injury at his hands or those of his servants, employees, or agents. And he is liable to a patron for assault, abuse, or injury suffered by reason of a breach of this duty, even where the assailant was a police officer employed to protect the premises and keep order therein, where the acts complained of were done by the officer in his private, and not his official, capacity. He is also under duty to protect patrons from injury resulting from the acts or conduct of other patrons and third persons, and is chargeable with liability for injuries suffered by reason of such acts or conduct. Thus, it has been held that the owner or proprietor of a bathing resort is bound to protect his patrons from injury caused by the conduct of other patrons or his own employees. And the manager of a place of public amusement who sells to a patron intoxicating liquors until he becomes drunk and disorderly, knowing that in such condition he may assault others without cause or provocation, is bound to protect other patrons, and for failure to do so is liable to another patron who is assaulted and injured by the drunken patron.”1  The Twin City Amusement Company could not delegate to the Livestock Association or any other person or group of persons the duties that the Twin City Amusement Company owed to its patrons, as above stated. The duties were absolute. The evidence showed that the purpose of the entertainment was a “rock and roll show” at which both white people and Negroes were in attendance. The Salater boy testified: “Q. Was beer generally available to the patrons? “A. Yes, sir, . . . : Did you witness any fights or disturbances during the course of the show? “A. Yes, sir, I did. “Q. Could you estimate how many and what type fights they were? ' 1 “A. There were about three or four fights that I saw. “Q. Were they between individuals or groups - - “A. They were between individuals. One time they had to stop the band, the music. “Q. Who stopped the band? “A. The announcer, or the police went up and told the announcer to stop the band. ... ‘ ‘ Q. What was occurring at the time the police officer stopped the band from playing? “A. Well, there was a big fight in the stands. A guy in the stands was throwing a guy to the floor.” In the face of the foregoing quoted testimony it can hardly be said that there was nothing to put the Twin City Amusement Company on notice of possible danger to patrons in leaving the grounds. In Citizens Coach Co. v. Wright, 228 Ark. 1143, 313 S. W. 2d 949, we held a carrier liable for failure to protect a passenger, saying: “Therefore, because of the testimony previously recited, and other in the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury and to support a verdict for some amount.” Here, there was evidence of disorder in the course of the evening; and certainly, with such disorder going on in the meeting, it could be reasonably anticipated that some disorder would take place after the show was over. Yet, with such condition existing, there is no testimony that any particular precautions were taken to protect the patrons. To my way of thinking the affair was unusual and called for more than usual precautions. Under the facts and circumstances then existing, did the Twin City Amusement Company take reasonable precautions to protect the patrons against assault? In 52 Am. Jur. p. 324, “Theaters, Shows, Exhibitions, Etc.” §78, the rule as to who answers that question is stated: “The general rules and principles which control as to Avhat questions are for determination by the jury and what questions are for the court, and the application of those rules and principles in actions of negligence generally, are controlling in actions to charge owners or proprietors of theaters or public amusements Avitli liability for injuries to invitees. Thus, it is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury to determine, on the facts and circumstances shoAvn in the particular case, the question of negligence or want of due care of the owner or proprietor sought to be charged, even though the injury to a patron was received in a rare, unusual, and unexpected accident. ’ ’ Seasonable men might differ as to whether reasonable precautions Avere taken by the Twin City Amusement Company in the case at bar. A Pulaski County Jury by its verdict in effect held that reasonable care Avas not exercised by the Twin City Amusement Company to protect the patrons against assault by other patrons. I Avould leave that verdict undisturbed; and, therefore, I dissent.   Annotations on various points in the above quotation may be found in 3 L.R.N.S. 1132, 85 A.S.R. 449, 5 Ann. Cas. 926, 29 A.L.R. 2d 911, and 67 A.L.R. 2d 965.