Home/Oregon Supreme Court/Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows

Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows

198 P.2d 847, 184 Or. 336, 5 A.L.R. 2d 690, 1948 Ore. LEXIS 229
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMay 6, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 198 P.2d 847 (Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 198 P.2d 847, 184 Or. 336, 5 A.L.R. 2d 690, 1948 Ore. LEXIS 229 (Or. 1948).

Opinion

BRAND, J.

At the trial, evidence to the following effect was introduced. During the summer of 1945 the defendant commenced arrangements for the purchase of land and the construction thereon of a. one-mile race track. On 25 August, 1945, an option for the purchase of 21 acres of the required land was secured from H.'M. Seivert who is one of the promoters of the theater project and is the owner of the land on which the theater is situated. On 15 October, 1945, defendant applied for a license to *339 operate a race meet to be held in May, 1946, and the license was issued. In October and early November, 1945, extensive newspaper publicity was given to the race track project, featuring the fact that the property would be lighted for night racing. On 15 October, 1945, a contractor was employed to plan and construct the race track and the facilities incidental thereto. Grading was commenced in November and the work was continued until the project was completed on 14 September, 1946.

During the fall of 1945 the land on which the plaintiff’s theater is located was being prepared and equipped for night auto racing by Northwest Sports, Inc.y an activity which, like that of defendant, would have involved the use of flood lights. On 29 November, 1945, a lease agreement was executed between Northwest Sports, Inc. and the promoters of the plaintiff corporation, entitling the lessees and their assignee, Amphitheaters, Inc., to construct and operate a drive-in outdoor motion picture theater upon the property adjoining the race track of defendants. But the lease provided. that the operation of the theater must not interfere with' the operations of the same property for auto racing. Plans for the construction of the theater were turned over in March, 1946, and construction was commenced in May or June of that year. At least some of the promoters of the theater project knew that the race track was to be lighted for night racing, though they may not have known the volume or extent of the proposed lighting.

The outdoor theater was completed and commenced operating on 31 August, 1946. The race track was completed and the first races held fifteen days later. The plaintiff invested $135,000 in the construction of *340 the outdoor theater and sums greatly in excess of that amount were expended by the defendant in the development of the race track and facilities. The lighting facilities alone involved an investment by the defendant of $100,000. The two tracts operated by plaintiff and defendant respectively are located just north of the city limits of Portland, Oregon. They adjoin and lie between two arterial highways, Denver Avenue and Union Avenue. The defendant’s track consists of a mile-long oval extending in a general northerly and southerly direction. The auto race track which encloses the plaintiff’s moving picture amphitheater lies between Union Avenue and the Northeast curve of the defendant’s oval track. Union Avenue • runs in a northwesterly direction along and parallel to the plaintiff’s property of which it forms the northeasterly boundary. The theater screen, approximately 40 feet high and 50 feet wide, is backed up against the westerly line of Union Avenue and faces slightly south of west and directly toward the defendant’s race track. At the trial a photograph showing the relative positions of the two properties and the nature of the adjacent territory was offered in evidence by the plaintiff and received without objection. It fairly represents the true situation. It is reproduced as a part of this opinion to illustrate the facts giving rise to our problem. The picture was taken from a point on defendant’s property. The northeasterly portion of defendant’s oval track appears in the foreground. The camera was aimed directly at the screen of plaintiff’s theater. Par better than words, the picture indicates the character of the area in which the two properties are located.

In installing outdoor moving picture theaters, it is necessary to protect the premises from outside light *341 interference. For that purpose the plaintiff constructed wing fences for a considerable distance on each side of the screen and along the westerly line of Union Avenue for the purpose of shutting off the light from the cars traveling on that arterial highway. It was also necessary to construct a shadow box extending on both sides and above the screen for the purpose of excluding the light from the moon and stars. The testimony indicates that the construction of the shadow box was necessary if a good picture was to be presented on the screen. The extreme delicacy of plaintiff’s operation and the susceptibility of outdoor moving pictures to light in any form was conclusively established by the evidence.

In order to illuminate the defendant’s track for night horse racing, approximately 350 1500-watt lights are mounted in clusters on 80-foot poles placed at intervals of approximately 250 feet around the track. The flood lights are in general, directed at the track, but there is substantial evidence to the effect that reflected light “spills” over onto the plaintiff’s premises and has a serious effect on the quality of pictures shown on the screen. The nearest cluster of lights on the defendant’s track is 832 feet distant from the plaintiff’s screen. The light from the defendant’s track not only impairs the quality of the pictures exhibited by the plaintiff, but there is also substantial evidence that plaintiffs have suffered financial loss as the result of the illumination of which they complain. On one occasion at least, plaintiffs felt themselves required to refund admission fees to their patrons on account of the poor quality of the picture exhibited. The evidence discloses that the light from the defendant’s race track when measured at plaintiff’s screen is approximately that of full moonlight.

*342

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ainsworth v. Owenby
326 F. Supp. 3d 1111 (D. Oregon, 2018)
Blue Ink, Ltd. v. Two Farms, Inc.
96 A.3d 810 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2014)
Blue Ink v. Two Farms
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2014
Hall v. State
326 P.3d 1165 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2014)
Mark v. STATE, DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
974 P.2d 716 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1999)
169 East 69th Street Corp. v. Leland
156 Misc. 2d 669 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1992)
Ream v. Keen
828 P.2d 1038 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen
773 P.2d 1294 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)
Morrison v. Smith
757 S.W.2d 678 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1988)
Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.
709 P.2d 782 (Washington Supreme Court, 1985)
Page County Appliance Center, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
347 N.W.2d 171 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1984)
Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., Inc.
669 P.2d 643 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1983)
Collier v. City of Portland
644 P.2d 1139 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1982)
Lunda v. Matthews
613 P.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
State v. Harris
594 P.2d 1318 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1979)
Jewett v. Deerhorn Enterprises, Inc.
575 P.2d 164 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1978)
Duddles v. City Council of West Linn
535 P.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Department of Environmental Quality v. Chemical Waste Storage & Disposition, Inc.
528 P.2d 1076 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1974)
Lynn Open Air Theatre, Inc. v. Sea Crest Cadillac-Pontiac, Inc.
294 N.E.2d 473 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1973)
Celebrity Studios, Inc. v. Civetta Excavating Inc.
72 Misc. 2d 1077 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 P.2d 847, 184 Or. 336, 5 A.L.R. 2d 690, 1948 Ore. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amphitheaters-inc-v-portland-meadows-or-1948.