Hammond v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hammond v. City of Atlanta

103 S.E. 39, 25 Ga. App. 259, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 721

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 5, 1920

Docket10919

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 39 (Hammond v. City of Atlanta) 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

Hammond v. City of Atlanta, 103 S.E. 39, 25 Ga. App. 259, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 721 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A municipality is not liable fox a tortious injury resulting from tlie acts of its servants or officers while engaged in the performance of their governmental duties. The maintenance and operation, by a municipality, of a fire department for the purpose of preventing and extinguishing fires being a governmental duty, the municipality is not liable in damages to a bystander upon one of its sidewalks, who was knocked down and hurt by a hose-reel which was being operated by firemen of the municipality while engaged in an attempt to extinguish a fire. See, in this connection: Love v. City of Atlanta, 95 Ga. 129 (22 S. E. 29, 51 Am. St. R. 64) ; Watson v. City of Atlanta, 136 Ga. 370 (71 S. E. 664) ; Rogers v. City of Atlanta, 143 Ga. 153 (84 S. E. 555). The above ruling is clearly distinguishable from that in City Council of Augusta v. Cleveland, 148 Ga. 734 (98 S. E. 345), where it was held, that, where the employees of a city in the exercise of a governmental function left a dangerous obstruction in the sidewalk, the city was nevertheless liable to one not chargeable with negligence who was injured thereby, since it was the duty of the city to maintain and keep its sidewalks safe and free from dangerous obstructions.

2. The petition failed to allege a cause of action, and was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. A municipality is not liable fox a tortious injury resulting from tlie acts of its servants or officers while engaged in the performance of their governmental duties. The maintenance and operation, by a municipality, of a fire department for the purpose of preventing and extinguishing fires being a governmental duty, the municipality is not liable in damages to a bystander upon one of its sidewalks, who was knocked down and hurt by a hose-reel which was being operated by firemen of the municipality while engaged in an attempt to extinguish a fire. See, in this connection: Love v. City of Atlanta, 95 Ga. 129 (22 S. E. 29, 51 Am. St. R. 64) ; Watson v. City of Atlanta, 136 Ga. 370 (71 S. E. 664) ; Rogers v. City of Atlanta, 143 Ga. 153 (84 S. E. 555). The above ruling is clearly distinguishable from that in City Council of Augusta v. Cleveland, 148 Ga. 734 (98 S. E. 345), where it was held, that, where the employees of a city in the exercise of a governmental function left a dangerous obstruction in the sidewalk, the city was nevertheless liable to one not chargeable with negligence who was injured thereby, since it was the duty of the city to maintain and keep its sidewalks safe and free from dangerous obstructions.

2. The petition failed to allege a cause of action, and was properly dismissed on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 39, 25 Ga. App. 259, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack