Curl v. Cherry

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Curl v. Cherry

124 S.E.2d 289, 105 Ga. App. 239, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 896

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 25, 1962

Docket39280

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 S.E.2d 289 (Curl v. Cherry) 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

Curl v. Cherry, 124 S.E.2d 289, 105 Ga. App. 239, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt Judge.

In accordance with the well-settled rule that ambiguous pleadings are to be construed most strongly against the pleader and that pleadings are to be construed in the light of their omissions as well as their averments, the failure of the plaintiff to allege facts as to what status he 'occupied on the defendant’s property will be construed as an allegation that the plaintiff was a bare licensee or a trespasser. Cook v. Southern Ry. Co., 53 Ga. App. 723 (187 SE 274); Piggly Wiggly, Macon, Inc. v. Kelsey, 83 Ga. App. 526 (64 SE2d 201); Ricks v. Boatwright, 95 Ga. App. 267 (97 SE2d 635). The allegations of negligence failing to show a violation of any duty to the plaintiff as a bare licensee or as a trespasser (Code § 105-402; Mandeville Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga. App. 607, 58 SE 1060), it was error to overrule the defendant’s general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Custer, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt Judge.

In accordance with the well-settled rule that ambiguous pleadings are to be construed most strongly against the pleader and that pleadings are to be construed in the light of their omissions as well as their averments, the failure of the plaintiff to allege facts as to what status he 'occupied on the defendant’s property will be construed as an allegation that the plaintiff was a bare licensee or a trespasser. Cook v. Southern Ry. Co., 53 Ga. App. 723 (187 SE 274); Piggly Wiggly, Macon, Inc. v. Kelsey, 83 Ga. App. 526 (64 SE2d 201); Ricks v. Boatwright, 95 Ga. App. 267 (97 SE2d 635). The allegations of negligence failing to show a violation of any duty to the plaintiff as a bare licensee or as a trespasser (Code § 105-402; Mandeville Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga. App. 607, 58 SE 1060), it was error to overrule the defendant’s general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Custer, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E.2d 289, 105 Ga. App. 239, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curl-v-cherry-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack