Harris v. BETHEL AIR CONDITIONING & ELECTRIC COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. BETHEL AIR CONDITIONING & ELECTRIC COMPANY

150 S.E.2d 710, 114 Ga. App. 255, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 703

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1966

Docket42129

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 150 S.E.2d 710 (Harris v. BETHEL AIR CONDITIONING & ELECTRIC COMPANY) 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

Harris v. BETHEL AIR CONDITIONING & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 150 S.E.2d 710, 114 Ga. App. 255, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

Where it appeared from the pleadings and from depositions in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment that plaintiff had contracted with the defendant for the removal of floor furnaces and the installation of a duct system of heating and air conditioning her home, and that while the work was in progress the workmen removed the grille from one of the floor furnaces, pulled the furnace and within less than a minute plaintiff, walking from one room to another across the hall to secure a memorandum, stepped into the hole left by removal of the furnace and was injured/the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judg *256 ment was proper. Plaintiff’s contention that the defendant was negligent in failing to warn her of the opening in the floor, or in failing to cover it immediately upon removing the furnace is without merit. Lunsford v. Childs, 107 Ga. App. 210 (129 SE2d 398). No reason appears in the pleadings or in the evidence submitted why plaintiff could not, in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety, have avoided stepping into the hole. It was work in progress in her own home which she had engaged to be done. It was in the daytime, and no reason appears why she could not have seen it. Nechtman v. B. Thorpe & Co., 99 Ga. App. 626 (109 SE2d 633). See also Lane Drug Stores v. Story, 72 Ga. App. 886 (35 SE2d 472); Lanier v. Turner, 73 Ga. App. 749, 753 (38 SE2d 55); Stephens v. Dover Elevator Co., 109 Ga. App. 112 (135 SE2d 593). In her deposition plaintiff answered in response to the question as to why she did not see the opening, “Well, I guess I wasn’t looking, because I fell into it.” “[WJhere it is perfectly obvious and apparent, so that one looking ahead would necessarily see it, the fact that the plaintiff merely failed to look will not relieve him from the responsibility for his misadventure.” Moore v. Kroger Co., 87 Ga. App. 581, 583 (74 SE2d 481). Accord: Mills v. Barker, 38 Ga. App. 734 (145 SE 672); National Bellas-Hess Co. v. Patrick, 49 Ga. App. 280 (175 SE 255); Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 70 Ga. App. 390 (28 SE2d 322); White v. City of Manchester, 92 Ga. App. 642, 644 (2) (89 SE2d 581).

Argued July 7, 1966 Decided September 6, 1966. Frank B. Zeigler, for appellant. Bouhan, Lawrence, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

Where it appeared from the pleadings and from depositions in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment that plaintiff had contracted with the defendant for the removal of floor furnaces and the installation of a duct system of heating and air conditioning her home, and that while the work was in progress the workmen removed the grille from one of the floor furnaces, pulled the furnace and within less than a minute plaintiff, walking from one room to another across the hall to secure a memorandum, stepped into the hole left by removal of the furnace and was injured/the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judg *256 ment was proper. Plaintiff’s contention that the defendant was negligent in failing to warn her of the opening in the floor, or in failing to cover it immediately upon removing the furnace is without merit. Lunsford v. Childs, 107 Ga. App. 210 (129 SE2d 398). No reason appears in the pleadings or in the evidence submitted why plaintiff could not, in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety, have avoided stepping into the hole. It was work in progress in her own home which she had engaged to be done. It was in the daytime, and no reason appears why she could not have seen it. Nechtman v. B. Thorpe & Co., 99 Ga. App. 626 (109 SE2d 633). See also Lane Drug Stores v. Story, 72 Ga. App. 886 (35 SE2d 472); Lanier v. Turner, 73 Ga. App. 749, 753 (38 SE2d 55); Stephens v. Dover Elevator Co., 109 Ga. App. 112 (135 SE2d 593). In her deposition plaintiff answered in response to the question as to why she did not see the opening, “Well, I guess I wasn’t looking, because I fell into it.” “[WJhere it is perfectly obvious and apparent, so that one looking ahead would necessarily see it, the fact that the plaintiff merely failed to look will not relieve him from the responsibility for his misadventure.” Moore v. Kroger Co., 87 Ga. App. 581, 583 (74 SE2d 481). Accord: Mills v. Barker, 38 Ga. App. 734 (145 SE 672); National Bellas-Hess Co. v. Patrick, 49 Ga. App. 280 (175 SE 255); Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 70 Ga. App. 390 (28 SE2d 322); White v. City of Manchester, 92 Ga. App. 642, 644 (2) (89 SE2d 581).

Argued July 7, 1966 Decided September 6, 1966. Frank B. Zeigler, for appellant. Bouhan, Lawrence, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E.2d 710, 114 Ga. App. 255, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-bethel-air-conditioning-electric-company-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack