Building Investments, Inc. v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Building Investments, Inc. v. Jackson

112 S.E.2d 359, 100 Ga. App. 827, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 737

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 1959

Docket37804

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E.2d 359 (Building Investments, Inc. v. Jackson) 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

Building Investments, Inc. v. Jackson, 112 S.E.2d 359, 100 Ga. App. 827, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

Quillian, Judge.

The allegations of the petition show the plaintiff occupied the status of an invitee on the defendant’s premises and that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe for her use. Southern Ry. Co. v. Howard, 9 Ga. App. 264 (70 S. E. 1124); Coffer v. Bradshaw, 46 Ga. App. 143 (6) (167 S. E. 119); Smith v. Jewell Cotton Mill Co., 29 Ga. App. 461 (116 S. E. 17). The petition did not disclose, as contended by the defendant, a failure of the plaintiff on the occasion of her injury to exercise ordinary care. The allegation that water blending in color with the color of the walkway filled the crack or depression into which the plaintiff stepped, gave a plausible reason for her inability to discern the presence of the crack or depression. Rich’s, Inc. v. Townsend, 94 Ga.App. 761 (96 S. E. 2d 332); Pilgreen v. Hanson, 94 Ga. App. 423 (94 S. E. 2d 752).

[829]*829“The rule has been thoroughly established by the appellate courts many times that negligence, whose negligence and what negligence are questions ordinarily peculiarly for the determination of a jury, and the appellate courts have declined time and time again to solve such questions on demurrer except in cases where such questions appear palpably clear, plain and indisputable. See Alford v. Ziegler, 65 Ga. App. 294 (16 S. E. 2d 69); Moore v. Shirley, 68 Ga. App. 38 (3) (21 S. E. 2d 925); Georgia Power Co. v. Blum, 80 Ga. App. 618 (57 S. E. 2d 18); Trammell v. Matthews, [84 Ga. App. 332, 66 S. E. 2d 183], supra, and Rogers v. Johnson, [94 Ga. App. 666, 96 S. E. 2d 285], supra.” Sheppard v. Martin, 100 Ga. App. 164, 166 (110 S. E. 2d 429).

“Questions as to negligence and contributory negligence are, except in plain and indisputable cases, for the determination of the jury, and where the allegations of the petition do not, even when construed against the pleader, demand the conclusion that the plaintiff’s own negligence so preponderated as to preclude a recovery by her, this issue should be left for determination by a jury.” Shattles v. Blanchard, 87 Ga. App. 15 (2) (73 S. E. 2d 112).

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s general demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle, and Nichols, JJ., concur. Felton, C. J., dissents.

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

Quillian, Judge.

The allegations of the petition show the plaintiff occupied the status of an invitee on the defendant’s premises and that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe for her use. Southern Ry. Co. v. Howard, 9 Ga. App. 264 (70 S. E. 1124); Coffer v. Bradshaw, 46 Ga. App. 143 (6) (167 S. E. 119); Smith v. Jewell Cotton Mill Co., 29 Ga. App. 461 (116 S. E. 17). The petition did not disclose, as contended by the defendant, a failure of the plaintiff on the occasion of her injury to exercise ordinary care. The allegation that water blending in color with the color of the walkway filled the crack or depression into which the plaintiff stepped, gave a plausible reason for her inability to discern the presence of the crack or depression. Rich’s, Inc. v. Townsend, 94 Ga.App. 761 (96 S. E. 2d 332); Pilgreen v. Hanson, 94 Ga. App. 423 (94 S. E. 2d 752).

[829]*829“The rule has been thoroughly established by the appellate courts many times that negligence, whose negligence and what negligence are questions ordinarily peculiarly for the determination of a jury, and the appellate courts have declined time and time again to solve such questions on demurrer except in cases where such questions appear palpably clear, plain and indisputable. See Alford v. Ziegler, 65 Ga. App. 294 (16 S. E. 2d 69); Moore v. Shirley, 68 Ga. App. 38 (3) (21 S. E. 2d 925); Georgia Power Co. v. Blum, 80 Ga. App. 618 (57 S. E. 2d 18); Trammell v. Matthews, [84 Ga. App. 332, 66 S. E. 2d 183], supra, and Rogers v. Johnson, [94 Ga. App. 666, 96 S. E. 2d 285], supra.” Sheppard v. Martin, 100 Ga. App. 164, 166 (110 S. E. 2d 429).

“Questions as to negligence and contributory negligence are, except in plain and indisputable cases, for the determination of the jury, and where the allegations of the petition do not, even when construed against the pleader, demand the conclusion that the plaintiff’s own negligence so preponderated as to preclude a recovery by her, this issue should be left for determination by a jury.” Shattles v. Blanchard, 87 Ga. App. 15 (2) (73 S. E. 2d 112).

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s general demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle, and Nichols, JJ., concur. Felton, C. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E.2d 359, 100 Ga. App. 827, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/building-investments-inc-v-jackson-gactapp-1959.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack