Bonner v. Barnes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bonner v. Barnes

119 S.E.2d 138, 103 Ga. App. 364, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 940

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 21, 1961

Docket38635

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 S.E.2d 138 (Bonner v. Barnes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonner v. Barnes, 119 S.E.2d 138, 103 Ga. App. 364, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 940 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

It does not seem to us that the maintenance of an air-conditioning unit which extends approximately two1 feet from the side of a building, even at head level, constitutes negligence on the part of the defendant. The presence of such equipment on the side of the building can easily be anticipated and thus distinguishes this case from the “public thoroughfare” cases relied on by the plaintiff. “Where a petition does not show the risk of unreasonable danger and does not show that the defendant could reasonably have foreseen danger to an invitee on his property, the trial court did [365]*365not err in sustaining the general demurrer.” McHugh v. Trust Co. of Ga., 102 Ga. App. 412 (116 S. E. 2d 512). The utility of the defendants’ act in placing an air conditioner in the premises for the comfort of customers far outweighs, under these circumstances, the likelihood of possible danger to invitees. “Negligence is bottomed on the anticipation of unreasonable risk which outweighs the utility of the defendants’ conduct.” Ely v. Barbizon Towers, 101 Ga. App. 872 (115 S. E. 2d 616). Moreover, the petition shows on its face that the plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety in walking hurriedly, head down, less than two feet from the side of a building. Also, if the air conditioner extended so close to or over the cement strip, the difficulty or danger, if there was any, in driving the automobile past it should have put the plaintiff sufficiently on notice of its presence. “If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover.” Code § 105-603.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

It does not seem to us that the maintenance of an air-conditioning unit which extends approximately two1 feet from the side of a building, even at head level, constitutes negligence on the part of the defendant. The presence of such equipment on the side of the building can easily be anticipated and thus distinguishes this case from the “public thoroughfare” cases relied on by the plaintiff. “Where a petition does not show the risk of unreasonable danger and does not show that the defendant could reasonably have foreseen danger to an invitee on his property, the trial court did [365]*365not err in sustaining the general demurrer.” McHugh v. Trust Co. of Ga., 102 Ga. App. 412 (116 S. E. 2d 512). The utility of the defendants’ act in placing an air conditioner in the premises for the comfort of customers far outweighs, under these circumstances, the likelihood of possible danger to invitees. “Negligence is bottomed on the anticipation of unreasonable risk which outweighs the utility of the defendants’ conduct.” Ely v. Barbizon Towers, 101 Ga. App. 872 (115 S. E. 2d 616). Moreover, the petition shows on its face that the plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety in walking hurriedly, head down, less than two feet from the side of a building. Also, if the air conditioner extended so close to or over the cement strip, the difficulty or danger, if there was any, in driving the automobile past it should have put the plaintiff sufficiently on notice of its presence. “If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover.” Code § 105-603.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E.2d 138, 103 Ga. App. 364, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonner-v-barnes-gactapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack