Dodge v. Huggins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dodge v. Huggins

9 S.E.2d 844, 62 Ga. App. 724, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 17, 1940

Docket28381.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 S.E.2d 844 (Dodge v. Huggins) 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

Dodge v. Huggins, 9 S.E.2d 844, 62 Ga. App. 724, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

In a suit for damages for injuries to a tenant, alleged to have been caused by defective premises, a verdict for the plaintiff will not be set aside on the ground that the landlord could not have discovered the defect alleged to have caused the injury in the repairing of another defect of which notice was given to the landlord, when the evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding that the defect alleged to have caused the injury was in existence at the time the premises were leased to the tenant, and that the landlord could have discovered it by the exercise of ordinary care. In this case the notice of defects in the premises was given at the time of the lease, and the defect upon which the suit was based of necessity had to be one in existence at that time. The jury found that the landlord was guilty of negligence in not discovering the defect and in not repairing it. The only two questions argued in the briefs for the plaintiff in error are, (1) whether the notice given the landlord was sufficient to charge him with the duty of repairing the defect pointed out, and (2) whether in the exercise of ordinary care in repairing the defect pointed out the landlord should have discovered the defect allegedly .causing the injury. The landlord’s duty to discover the defect arose from his duty under the law not to lease premises having a latent defect discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care. Robinson v. Odom, 35 Ga. App. 262 (133 S. E. 53); Wilson v. Elijah A. Brown Co., 62 Ga. App. 898 (10 S. E. 2d). He was thus charged regardless of notice. The only assignments of error were on the general grounds of the motion for new trial. The court did not err in overruling the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., concurs. Sutton, J., concurs in the judgment.

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

Felton, J.

In a suit for damages for injuries to a tenant, alleged to have been caused by defective premises, a verdict for the plaintiff will not be set aside on the ground that the landlord could not have discovered the defect alleged to have caused the injury in the repairing of another defect of which notice was given to the landlord, when the evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding that the defect alleged to have caused the injury was in existence at the time the premises were leased to the tenant, and that the landlord could have discovered it by the exercise of ordinary care. In this case the notice of defects in the premises was given at the time of the lease, and the defect upon which the suit was based of necessity had to be one in existence at that time. The jury found that the landlord was guilty of negligence in not discovering the defect and in not repairing it. The only two questions argued in the briefs for the plaintiff in error are, (1) whether the notice given the landlord was sufficient to charge him with the duty of repairing the defect pointed out, and (2) whether in the exercise of ordinary care in repairing the defect pointed out the landlord should have discovered the defect allegedly .causing the injury. The landlord’s duty to discover the defect arose from his duty under the law not to lease premises having a latent defect discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care. Robinson v. Odom, 35 Ga. App. 262 (133 S. E. 53); Wilson v. Elijah A. Brown Co., 62 Ga. App. 898 (10 S. E. 2d). He was thus charged regardless of notice. The only assignments of error were on the general grounds of the motion for new trial. The court did not err in overruling the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., concurs. Sutton, J., concurs in the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.E.2d 844, 62 Ga. App. 724, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodge-v-huggins-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack