Gheesling v. Dennard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gheesling v. Dennard

25 S.E.2d 819, 69 Ga. App. 432, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 105

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1943

Docket30060.

StatusPublished

This text of 25 S.E.2d 819 (Gheesling v. Dennard) 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

Gheesling v. Dennard, 25 S.E.2d 819, 69 Ga. App. 432, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, P. J.

Mrs. Lillian Dennard instituted suit against Gheesling et al., to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by her while she was in the defendant’s furniture store, for the purpose of making a purchase of furniture, and was being accompanied by one of the defendants to that part of the store in which the furniture was on display, and was therefore an invitee on the defendants’ premises; which injuries were caused after stepping into an open trap-door of which she was unaware, which the defendants had negligently allowed and maintained in the floor, without any guard or protective device, at a place in the store which was dark and unlighted.

The petition set out a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

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

Stephens, P. J.

Mrs. Lillian Dennard instituted suit against Gheesling et al., to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by her while she was in the defendant’s furniture store, for the purpose of making a purchase of furniture, and was being accompanied by one of the defendants to that part of the store in which the furniture was on display, and was therefore an invitee on the defendants’ premises; which injuries were caused after stepping into an open trap-door of which she was unaware, which the defendants had negligently allowed and maintained in the floor, without any guard or protective device, at a place in the store which was dark and unlighted.

The petition set out a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E.2d 819, 69 Ga. App. 432, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gheesling-v-dennard-gactapp-1943.