WOMETCO THEATRES CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A MIRACLE THEATRE, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIUS RATH, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIANA RATH, AND JULIUS RATH, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A theatre patron was injured when another patron, whom theatre staff suspected of being a child molester, violently broke away while being escorted from the theatre. The court reversed a negligence judgment against the theatre, holding that a theatre owner owes patrons a duty of reasonable care but is not liable for violent acts that could not have been reasonably anticipated.
The theatre owner is not liable. While theatre operators owe patrons a duty to exercise due care to protect them from assaults by other patrons, liability attaches only for acts or conduct that could have been reasonably anticipated or guarded against. Here, the defendant's employees could not have reasonably anticipated that the suspected molester would become violent, as mere knowledge that someone may be a child molester does not constitute knowledge that he would react violently.
“the operator or owner of an entertainment attraction such as a motion picture theatre is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons”
Establishes the general rule that theatre owners have limited liability, not absolute liability for all injuries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile Juliana Rath was in the defendant's theatre, an usher became suspicious that another patron was a child molester and reported this to the house …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreseeability Of Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant has appealed from an adverse judgment entered pursuant t<p a jury verdict in a negligence action. The complaint alleged damages for personal injuries, sustained by Juliana Rath while in defendant’s theatre, occasioned by the actions of a suspected child molester, who struck her while attempting to flee from the theatre.
The record reveals that an usher employed by the defendant had become suspicious that a patron of the theatre was a *473child molester, which suspicion was relayed to the defendant’s house manager. The house manager then seated himself behind this patron whose actions appeared to confirm the usher’s suspicions. The house manager in the presence of the head usher asked the patron to step into the lobby to answer some questions, whereupon the patron lunged forward, the house manager grabbed him by the arm and a struggle ensued. The patron was subdued and was being accompanied up the aisle toward the lobby when he suddenly broke away, brushing past the plaintiff and knocking her against a seat and onto the floor. The house manager testified that he had on previous occasions investigated the alleged activities of suspected child molesters, but had never before, in fourteen years’ experience, been met with violence. He further testified that he had not anticipated and had no idea that the suspected molester would qttempt to flee.
On appeal, the determinative question raised by the appellant is whether or not a theatre is liable to its patrons for the negligent action of another patron.
It is a general rule that the operator or owner of an entertainment attraction such as a motion picture theatre is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons. See Central Theatres v. Wilkinson, 154 Fla. 589, 18 So.2d 755; Rainbow Enterprises v. Thompson, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 208, 55 A.L.R.2d 861. However, it has been held that an operator or owner of such an establishment owes to his patrons the duty to exercise due care to protect them from assault by other patrons and the operator or owner may be charged with liability for injuries resulting from the acts or conduct of other patrons which could have reasonably beep anticipated or guarded against. Central Theatres v. Wilkinson, supra; Annotation 29 A.L.R.2d 911.
From the evidence produced, it is clear that the defendant’s employees did not know, nor could they have reasonably
anticipated, that the suspected child molester was a violent person or that he would react in the manner described. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant’s employees should have known or anticipated this violent reaction; the evidence is clearly to the contrary. We therefore conclude, based upon the evidence presented, that the defendant’s employees were not negligent. Mere knowledge that a person may be a child molester is not knowledge that he would become violent, nor is it sufficient knowledge from which the defendant’s employees could have reasonably anticipated violence which would or might result in injury to another patron. Compare Knight v. Powers Dry Goods Co., Inc., 225 Minn. 280, 30 N.W.2d 536.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., TL, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Warner v. Fla. JAI Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…ific patron, unless the operator has actual or constructive knowledge of the need for specific supervision and a reasonable opportunity to exercise it. Elmore v. Sones, Fla.App.1962, 140 So. 2d 59; Wometco Theatres Corporation v. Rath, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 472. Otherwise, the operator would be in the position of an insuror of the safety of his patrons. In the present case there are no allegations that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the presence of the offending drunk or of any risk…
-
Agustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…foreseeable consequence of that danger is the injury alleged to have been suffered by Fernandez. The present case is unlike Graham v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 240 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), and Wometco Theatres Corporation v. Rath, 123 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), where the violent consequences of a foreseeable intervening criminal act are not foreseeable.2 Nor is the present case one in which the plaintiff seeks to impose liability on the defendants as a result of the unpredictable behavi…
-
Gottschalk v. Smith, 334 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…be held liable for a breach of duty to a customer he must have either actual or constructive knowledge of the particular risk involved and/or a reasonable opportunity to protect him from that risk. Wometco Theatres Corporation v. Roth, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 472; Elmore v. Sones, Fla.App.1962, 140 So. 2d 59; Reynolds v. Deep South Sports, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 37; Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., Fla.App. 1969, 221 So. 2d 777. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the final judgment is reversed inso…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cent. Theatres, Inc. v. Henriette Wilkinson, 154 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1944)
- Rainbow Enters., Inc. v. Thompson, 81 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1955)