Collier v. Duckett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Collier v. Duckett

121 S.E. 871, 31 Ga. App. 703, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 137

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1924

Docket14508

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 871 (Collier v. Duckett) 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

Collier v. Duckett, 121 S.E. 871, 31 Ga. App. 703, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 137 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where steps to a house on rented premises were not in a broken condition, but were apparently whole and safe for the use intended, an occupant injured by reason of the steps breaking while being used is not conclusively presumed to nave knowledge of the unsafe condition of the steps by reason of the fact that six months prior to the injury the occupant stated to the landlord that the steps were “old, worn out, and in bad repair,” when the landlord at the time, after receiving such notice and inspecting the premises, notified the occupant that the steps were in good condition and did not need repair and would last for a long time. The person injured, therefore, was not, in using the steps, guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar a recovery against the landlord for an injury sustained.

2. An inspection of the steps by the landlord six months prior to the time of the injury might have revealed such a defective condition in the

_ steps as might render them unsafe for use at the time of the injury, and the landlord’s failure to repair the steps after such inspection and after having been notified that the steps were old and worn out, may have amounted to negligence proximately contributing to the injury.

3. The petition as amended in the suit of the person injured against the landlord to recover for alleged injuries thus sustained set out a cause of action and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Where steps to a house on rented premises were not in a broken condition, but were apparently whole and safe for the use intended, an occupant injured by reason of the steps breaking while being used is not conclusively presumed to nave knowledge of the unsafe condition of the steps by reason of the fact that six months prior to the injury the occupant stated to the landlord that the steps were “old, worn out, and in bad repair,” when the landlord at the time, after receiving such notice and inspecting the premises, notified the occupant that the steps were in good condition and did not need repair and would last for a long time. The person injured, therefore, was not, in using the steps, guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar a recovery against the landlord for an injury sustained.

2. An inspection of the steps by the landlord six months prior to the time of the injury might have revealed such a defective condition in the

_ steps as might render them unsafe for use at the time of the injury, and the landlord’s failure to repair the steps after such inspection and after having been notified that the steps were old and worn out, may have amounted to negligence proximately contributing to the injury.

3. The petition as amended in the suit of the person injured against the landlord to recover for alleged injuries thus sustained set out a cause of action and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 871, 31 Ga. App. 703, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-v-duckett-gactapp-1924.