Frierson v. Mutual Realty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Frierson v. Mutual Realty Co.

174 S.E. 144, 48 Ga. App. 839, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 216

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 29, 1934·No. 23440·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Beoyles, C. J.

Under the allegations of the petition, construed most strongly against the plaintiff, she was not exercising ordinary care when she approached the defendant’s apartment house and opened a door therein and simultaneously stepped into a dark and unUghted basement (an unlighted stairway leading from the door down to the floor of the basement), and was precipitated to the basement floor. The averment in the petition that she was exercising ordinary care was not supported by the facts set forth therein. The court properly dismissed the case on general demurrer. See Hendriks v. Jones, 28 Ga. App. 335 (111 S. E. 81), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Beoyles, C. J.

Under the allegations of the petition, construed most strongly against the plaintiff, she was not exercising ordinary care when she approached the defendant’s apartment house and opened a door therein and simultaneously stepped into a dark and unUghted basement (an unlighted stairway leading from the door down to the floor of the basement), and was precipitated to the basement floor. The averment in the petition that she was exercising ordinary care was not supported by the facts set forth therein. The court properly dismissed the case on general demurrer. See Hendriks v. Jones, 28 Ga. App. 335 (111 S. E. 81), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Frierson v. Mutual Realty Co., 174 S.E. 144, 48 Ga. App. 839, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

174 S.E. 144 (Frierson v. Mutual Realty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related