{ "id": 4967994, "name": "Laverne Cigan, Minor, by Agnes Cigan, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff. Laverne Klostermann, Appellee, v. Arcadia Garden Corporation and A. A. Sprague, Trustee, Defendants. Arcadia Garden Corporation, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Cigan v. Arcadia Garden Corp.", "decision_date": "1944-05-19", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 42,626", "first_page": "170", "last_page": "173", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "323 Ill. App. 170" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "73 S. W. (2d) 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 8730121 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo-app/228/0840-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S. W. 732", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5155170 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/60/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 N. E. (2d) 716", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 Mass. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 903013 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/307/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 A. (2d) 831", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 Pa. Super. Ct. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 1022303 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/138/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 Atl. 863", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N. J. L. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 188837 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/112/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 Ill. App. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3257869 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/270/0547-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 344, "char_count": 4319, "ocr_confidence": 0.509, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.662502337759594e-07, "percentile": 0.6946026583017002 }, "sha256": "cf4ac19fb3826df25167c17a7cf6bef1c45fa40f6931046edd022e84d4714b11", "simhash": "1:4c95c29c6f69d6b7", "word_count": 718 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:18.054984+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Laverne Cigan, Minor, by Agnes Cigan, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff. Laverne Klostermann, Appellee, v. Arcadia Garden Corporation and A. A. Sprague, Trustee, Defendants. Arcadia Garden Corporation, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Kiley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a personal injury action arising from an accident on defendant\u2019s roller skating rink. Defendant Sprague, trustee, was dismissed on plaintiff\u2019s motion at the close of her case. Verdict and judgment in the amount of $3,000 were for Plaintiff L\u00e1veme Klostermann. Defendant appeals.\nAbout 8 p. m. Saturday, March 2, 1940, plaintiff, then about 16 years of age, and several friends, paid for admission and entered defendant\u2019s roller skating rink, where they commenced to skate about ten minutes later. Sometime around 10 o\u2019clock they decided to leave and plaintiff, while skating to the exit off the rink proper, was pushed against the railing, fell to the floor and was painfully injured.\nThe complaint charges that defendant was negligent in permitting the rink to become dangerous through overcrowding; and in maintaining a weak railing, which \u2018 crashed when plaintiff was thrown against it, and it resulted in her being thrown against the post and sustaining injuries, . . .\u201d There is no proof that the railing was weak or that it had crashed. The proof is to the contrary. There is testimony that plaintiff was pushed against the railing and into a post and injured, and also testimony purporting to show an overcrowding. If the testimony of overcrowding warranted the case going to the jury, we believe the allegation is sufficient to support a proper verdict.\nThe testimony for plaintiff is that at first only 50 persons were skating, bnt that the crowd gradually grew until plaintiff and her friends decided to leave because it was too crowded for enjoyment, fun, or \u201cskating with speed,\u201d or \u201cto skate right\u201d; that there was not an \u201carm\u2019s reach\u201d; that \u201cpersons were all about,\u201d they \u201ccould not move as there wasn\u2019t any room\u201d and \u201cthey were pushed around with no place to go\u201d; that there was an \u201coverflow crowd\u201d and the \u201cwhole rink was really jammed\u201d; and that they had been there several times before and on Saturday nights, but the rink was never so crowded. This may have been sufficient testimony to take the case to the jury, if \u201covercrowding\u201d alone was evidence of negligence. That is the issue here.\nPlaintiff neither alleged nor proved that she was injured as a result of some danger, beyond the normal dangers incident to roller skating with other invitees in an indoor rink, which arose from the overcrowding and which defendant, as a reasonably prudent person should have foreseen and, accordingly, it cannot be found negligent. Shayne v. Coliseum Bldg. Corp., 270 Ill. App. 547; Thurber v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 112 N. J. L. 385, 170 Atl. 863; Kallish v. American Base Ball Club of Philadelphia, 138 Pa. Super. Ct. 602, 10 A. (2d) 831; Lemoine v. Springfield Hockey Ass\u2019n, Inc., 307 Mass. 102, 29 N. E. (2d) 716. In the cases mainly relied upon by plaintiff, Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Dumpser, 60 Ill. App. 93; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. 732, both overcrowded common carrier cases and Myers v. Kansas City Junior Orpheum Co. (Kan. App.), 73 S. W. (2d) 313, an overcrowded theatre lobby case, there is proof from which it is evident that the defendant had notice and should have foreseen the dangerous consequences of overcrowding. We think it is evident from a perusal of the testimony of overcrowding hereinabove, that defendant had no notice on the night of the accident or previously of any unusual danger, from which it, as a reasonably prudent person, should have foreseen, that a person while attempting to skate off the rink would suffer the accident or injury that followed. The trial court, therefore, should have directed a verdict for defendant.\nUnder the circumstances it is unnecessary to consider any other points. For the reason^ given the judgment is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.\nHebel, P. J., and Burke, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Kiley" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lord, Bissell & Kadyk, of Chicago, for appellant; Leonard F. Martin, Edward S. Crowell and Guy C. Baltz, all of Chicago, of counsel.", "Thomas H. Riley, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Laverne Cigan, Minor, by Agnes Cigan, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff. Laverne Klostermann, Appellee, v. Arcadia Garden Corporation and A. A. Sprague, Trustee, Defendants. Arcadia Garden Corporation, Appellant.\nGen. No. 42,626.\nOpinion filed May 19, 1944.\nRehearing denied June 13, 1944.\nLord, Bissell & Kadyk, of Chicago, for appellant; Leonard F. Martin, Edward S. Crowell and Guy C. Baltz, all of Chicago, of counsel.\nThomas H. Riley, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0170-01", "first_page_order": 192, "last_page_order": 195 }