## Facts

- Alice Clayton and her husband attended a roller-skating rink as paying patrons.
- While skating, Alice fell and fractured her left arm; she alleged the fall was caused by chewing gum negligently allowed to remain on the skating floor.
- Alice, an experienced skater, skated for about two hours before the fall and noticed nothing unusual about the floor, though she saw gum wrappers in the area.
- Her husband described the floor as “dirty” and noted “dirt spots,” but did not observe the floor where Alice fell.
- After the fall, Alice was assisted to a first-aid room.
- Victor J. Brown, a corporate officer of the rink, administered aid, manipulated her fractured arm, applied traction, and placed a splint; he stated he was not a physician but had experience as a prizefight manager.
- Alice was taken to a hospital where reduction efforts were unsuccessful and additional surgical procedures, including bone grafts and hardware, were required.
- The complaint asserted (1) negligent maintenance of the premises, (2) negligent and unskilled “treatment” aggravating the injury (attributed to Brown and the corporation), and (3) assault and battery based on alleged nonconsensual treatment.
- The trial court dismissed the action at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that defendants negligently maintained the rink floor by permitting chewing gum to remain, including proof that defendants placed it there or had actual or constructive notice of it.
2. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Brown’s manipulation of the fracture supported submission to the jury on (a) negligent treatment/aggravation and (b) assault and battery for nonconsensual touching.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the premises-liability claim based on the chewing-gum condition for insufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice.
- The appellate court reversed dismissal of the claims arising from Brown’s conduct in administering aid, holding the evidence required jury determination on negligent aggravation and assault-and-battery theories.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the partial affirmance and reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A proprietor is not an insurer of patron safety; liability for a foreign substance on the floor requires evidence that the proprietor or employees created the condition or had actual or constructive notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct it.
- Evidence of general untidiness or nearby debris, without proof connecting the specific hazard to creation or notice, is insufficient to submit a slip-and-fall claim to the jury.
- One who undertakes to render assistance must use reasonable care; unskilled acts that aggravate an injury may support liability, including vicarious liability when done by an officer/agent acting for the business.
- Manipulative medical-type treatment without effective consent may constitute an actionable battery; whether consent existed or the conduct exceeded any implied permission to provide incidental aid is ordinarily a fact question.

## Conclusion

The court required specific proof that the rink had notice of the particular floor hazard before imposing premises liability, but held that a jury could find liability where a nonphysician corporate officer undertook fracture manipulation that may have been unskilled and nonconsensual, potentially aggravating the injury and constituting battery.


Clayton v. New Dreamland Roller Skating Rink, Inc., 82 A.2d 458 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)