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
PERRY BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. RANKIN, by Next Friend, et al.
44872.
DEEN, Judge.
Action for damages. Glynn Superior Court. Before Judge Flexer.
The "things" appear to have been boards used for the purpose of holding the stack of bricks in place.
The plaintiff's theory of recovery is that Interstate Homes, the occupier of the premises and which had notice that children had on previous occasions come onto the construction site to play, was negligent in leaving the pile of bricks insecurely supported and that Perry Brothers, the only defendant with which we are concerned here, was jointly negligent through its truck driver in depositing the bricks as it did at the co-defendant's site of operation. It is true that one aware of the custom of children to play around potentially dangerous structure on its premises is bound to use ordinary care to avoid injuring them after their presence is known or reasonably to be anticipated. Clinton v. Gunn-Willis Lumber Co., 77 Ga. App. 643 (49 SE2d 143). It is also true that the plaintiff, even assuming that contributory negligence on his part might be a jury question (in which connection see Brewer v. Gittings, 102 Ga. App. 367, 373 (116 SE2d 500); Code 105-204), was a trespasser. Crosby v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co., 114 Ga. App. 193 (2) (150 SE2d 563). Any knowledge of Interstate Homes of the presence of infant trespassers which would raise the duty of care owed by it to them is not imputable to Perry Brothers unless it also had such knowledge, there being no privity between them except as independent contractors. It is not suggested that this company had any such knowledge at the time the bricks were delivered, or even during the month thereafter when they remained in an apparently static position on the property. Once they were delivered, unless some inherent latent defect existed at that time, the responsibility for their safekeeping shifted to the builder. Apparently there was no such latent defect, since according to the plaintiff's testimony he personally pulled out the supporting boards to see if the bricks would fall, and they did. The only duty of this defendant toward a trespasser on the property on which the bricks were delivered was to refrain from wilfully and wantonly injuring him; no duty of anticipating his presence was imposed. Mandeville Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga. App. 607 (58 SE 1060).
Adams & Nichols, Ronald Adams, for appellee.
Nightingale, Liles & Dennard, B. N. Nightingale, for appellant.
ARGUED NOVEMBER 3, 1969 -- DECIDED NOVEMBER 24, 1969 --REHEARING DENIED DECEMBER 10, 1969.
Friday May 22 17:55 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