Graham v. McCullough

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Graham v. McCullough

199 S.E. 773, 58 Ga. App. 668, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 93

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1938

Docket27025

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 S.E. 773 (Graham v. McCullough) 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

Graham v. McCullough, 199 S.E. 773, 58 Ga. App. 668, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The assignment of error in the bill of exceptions upon the refusal of the court to dismiss the petition, on an oral motion by the defendant, not having been argued or insisted on in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

2. “Where a tenant requested the landlord to repair steps upon the premises, and, about three weeks' thereafter and shortly after the steps had been repaired, the tenant’s wife, who was an occupant of the premises, believing that the steps were in good condition, undertook to descend them, and while she was so doing the steps fell away from the house, to which they were not securely attached, and she was thereby caused to fall and sustained personal injuries, the inference is authorized that the landlord was negligent in failing to properly repair the steps- after due notice, that the defective condition of the steps was not patent and was unknown to the person injured, and that the injuries received were proximafely caused by the negligence of the landlord.” Pugh v. Middlebrooks, 47 Ga. App. 528 (3) (171 S. E. 160). Applying the principle of the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the verdict in favor of 'the plaintiff was authorized. The cases cited by the plaintiff in error are distinguished by their particular facts from this case.

3. None of the special grounds of the motion for new trial shows cause for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., coneur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The assignment of error in the bill of exceptions upon the refusal of the court to dismiss the petition, on an oral motion by the defendant, not having been argued or insisted on in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

2. “Where a tenant requested the landlord to repair steps upon the premises, and, about three weeks' thereafter and shortly after the steps had been repaired, the tenant’s wife, who was an occupant of the premises, believing that the steps were in good condition, undertook to descend them, and while she was so doing the steps fell away from the house, to which they were not securely attached, and she was thereby caused to fall and sustained personal injuries, the inference is authorized that the landlord was negligent in failing to properly repair the steps- after due notice, that the defective condition of the steps was not patent and was unknown to the person injured, and that the injuries received were proximafely caused by the negligence of the landlord.” Pugh v. Middlebrooks, 47 Ga. App. 528 (3) (171 S. E. 160). Applying the principle of the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the verdict in favor of 'the plaintiff was authorized. The cases cited by the plaintiff in error are distinguished by their particular facts from this case.

3. None of the special grounds of the motion for new trial shows cause for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., coneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E. 773, 58 Ga. App. 668, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-mccullough-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack