NEGLIGENCE-LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT OPERATORS FOR DANGEROUS PREMISES

Authors

Ruth Wanamaker, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

While a patron at a dog race track, plaintiff suffered injuries when she slipped on an empty beverage bottle left in the aisle of the grandstand. In an action against the proprietor, a motion for directed verdict in favor of defendant was granted on the theory that plaintiff had failed to show defendant's actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of the bottle; the trial court further stated that if constructive knowledge were relied on, the plaintiff must prove that the bottle had been in the grandstand long enough for the owners, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have discovered and removed it. Held, reversed; while this may be the correct rule with respect to ordinary places of business, it is not applicable in the case of a public amusement park, where many patrons fill the aisles and are permitted to purchase and drink bottled beverages and to set the empty bottles anywhere. The question of whether defendant exercised ordinary care should have been submitted to the jury. Wells v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, (Fla.1948) 35 S. (2d) 720.

Recommended Citation

Ruth Wanamaker, NEGLIGENCE-LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT OPERATORS FOR DANGEROUS PREMISES, 47 Mich. L. Rev. 588 (1949).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss4/17