Bridger v. Gresham

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bridger v. Gresham

35 S.E. 677, 111 Ga. 814, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 741

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 35 S.E. 677 (Bridger v. Gresham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bridger v. Gresham, 35 S.E. 677, 111 Ga. 814, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 741 (Ga. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, J.

Where the evidence submitted in behalf of the plaintiff was to the effect that he went to the office of the defendant’s hotel, at night, to offer berries for sale, and a guest informed him that the proprietor was out, but that his boy, who might buy the berries, was in the dining-room oi' kitchen ; that, relying upon his knowledge of the premises, plaintiff undertook to go in search of the boy, and opened and went out of a door leading from the office, which was lighted, on to a back veranda where there was no light, closing the door as he passed out, and while walking along the veranda in the darkness fell down a stairway and was injured : Held, that, irrespectively of the question as to whether or not the defendant, relatively to the plaintiff, was bound to use ordinary care in keeping his premises safe, the granting of a nonsuit was proper, it being manifest that the plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the injury.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Fish, J.

Where the evidence submitted in behalf of the plaintiff was to the effect that he went to the office of the defendant’s hotel, at night, to offer berries for sale, and a guest informed him that the proprietor was out, but that his boy, who might buy the berries, was in the dining-room oi' kitchen ; that, relying upon his knowledge of the premises, plaintiff undertook to go in search of the boy, and opened and went out of a door leading from the office, which was lighted, on to a back veranda where there was no light, closing the door as he passed out, and while walking along the veranda in the darkness fell down a stairway and was injured : Held, that, irrespectively of the question as to whether or not the defendant, relatively to the plaintiff, was bound to use ordinary care in keeping his premises safe, the granting of a nonsuit was proper, it being manifest that the plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the injury.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.E. 677, 111 Ga. 814, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridger-v-gresham-ga-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack