lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
C. A. TRUSSELL MOTOR Co. v. HAYGOOD.
19446.
DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice.
Since the grant of certiorari in this case, we have heard arguments of counsel, and upon further and more careful consideration we have concluded that the allegations of the petition were sufficient to withstand the demurrer, and that the Court of Appeals did not err in so holding. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari was inadvertently granted and the same is dismissed. Carter v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co., 180 Ga. 419 (179 S. E. 80); First Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Williams, 191 Ga. 611 (13 S. E. 2d 361).
The petitioner brought this action in tort for personal injuries resulting from slipping and falling in the defendant's garage, where he was an invitee and customer to obtain an estimate for repair to his automobile. His petition alleges in substance: that he was not a frequent visitor and therefore was unacquainted with the constructural conditions of the repair shop, and (1) the floor of said repair shop is made of concrete, the surface of which was finished smoothly and so smooth as to be dangerous when wet; (2) the floor slopes from all sides towards the center for drainage purposes, which slope is not noticeable to one unacquainted with the premises; (3) the building is constructed partly below grade with trees and other obstacles surrounding it, so that the building interior gets very little outside light; (4) the lighting in the building, which has no ceiling--the lights being attached to overhead beams--casts shadows of the automobiles undergoing repair, so that there is no uniform light upon the concrete floor; (5) some oil had escaped upon the floor from automobiles undergoing repair from time to time; (6) a heavy rain fell while petitioner was in the building, and automobiles entered dripping water upon the concrete, making it wet in spots; (7) the clouds from which the rain came further darkened the place of business; (8) he slipped and fell and sustained the injuries as a result of the dangerous condition of the concrete floor as set forth above, and defendant and its employees, servants, and agents knew that in repairing automobiles oil would escape and the floor would become slippery and even more so when water got on it, and that, because of the poor visibility, they knew that the wet places on the floor caused from the water dripping from the cars, or oil, or both, were not always obvious and detectable to a customer and invitee, and defendant knew or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known that the place where he slipped and fell was wet with water and oil, was a hazard and dangerous, and defendant should have warned him of such, and it was negligence not to have done so, defendant having constructed the building and occupied the same for a number of years; and defendant, its employees, agents and servants thus knew of the above allegations which created this dangerous condition.
The writ of certiorari was granted because of the ruling of the Court of Appeals as to whether or not the allegations as to the defendant's superior knowledge of the causative factors creating the hazard were sufficient to withstand a general demurrer, the opinion of that court being in the affirmative.
Rupert A. Brown, contra.
Erwin, Nix, Birchmore & Epting, Howell C. Erwin, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
ARGUED OCTOBER 8, 1956 -- DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1956.
Saturday May 23 02:17 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com