Hartman v. Brady

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hartman v. Brady

162 S.E.2d 246, 117 Ga. App. 828, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1556

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 5, 1968

Docket43488

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 162 S.E.2d 246 (Hartman v. Brady) 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

Hartman v. Brady, 162 S.E.2d 246, 117 Ga. App. 828, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1556 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

Felton, Chief Judge.

In the plaintiff employee’s action against her employer, the defendant department store owner, for damages for personal injuries sustained when she tripped and fell while using allegedly unsafe steps from the store’s rear entrance, resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligence in maintaining and failing to warn the plaintiff of such unsafe condition, although she alleged that she had never used these steps before and neither knew nor had means of knowing of their danger, she also alleged that, “after having carried out two boxes [as requested by the defendant] and while attempting to carry the third one out, the plaintiff’s foot tripped and she fell in attempting to go out the back entrance and down the steps.” The plaintiff-appellee’s brief contends that the above allegation was amended to read as follows: "After having made two trips to the back door and placing boxes beside the back door to be carried outside, plaintiff on the third trip to the back door was attempting to descend the steps leading from the rear of said store into the alley. At said time and place, the plaintiff’s foot tripped and she fell in attempting to go out the back entrance and down the steps. . . .” A search of the record fails to reveal the alleged amendment. The petition as otherwise amended, construed against the pleader, as well as the affidavits of both parties on file, shows that the plaintiff had, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have had, knowledge of the alleged unsafe condi[829]*829tion from having just traversed the steps twice immediately prior to her fall. The court, therefore, erred in its judgment overruling the defendant’s general demurrer to the petition and motion for a summary judgment.

Submitted March 4, 1968 Decided May 9, 1968 Judgment adhered to June 5, 1968. Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey, for appellant. John N. Crudup, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt and Whitman, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

In the plaintiff employee’s action against her employer, the defendant department store owner, for damages for personal injuries sustained when she tripped and fell while using allegedly unsafe steps from the store’s rear entrance, resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligence in maintaining and failing to warn the plaintiff of such unsafe condition, although she alleged that she had never used these steps before and neither knew nor had means of knowing of their danger, she also alleged that, “after having carried out two boxes [as requested by the defendant] and while attempting to carry the third one out, the plaintiff’s foot tripped and she fell in attempting to go out the back entrance and down the steps.” The plaintiff-appellee’s brief contends that the above allegation was amended to read as follows: "After having made two trips to the back door and placing boxes beside the back door to be carried outside, plaintiff on the third trip to the back door was attempting to descend the steps leading from the rear of said store into the alley. At said time and place, the plaintiff’s foot tripped and she fell in attempting to go out the back entrance and down the steps. . . .” A search of the record fails to reveal the alleged amendment. The petition as otherwise amended, construed against the pleader, as well as the affidavits of both parties on file, shows that the plaintiff had, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have had, knowledge of the alleged unsafe condi[829]*829tion from having just traversed the steps twice immediately prior to her fall. The court, therefore, erred in its judgment overruling the defendant’s general demurrer to the petition and motion for a summary judgment.

Submitted March 4, 1968 Decided May 9, 1968 Judgment adhered to June 5, 1968. Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey, for appellant. John N. Crudup, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Eberhardt and Whitman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E.2d 246, 117 Ga. App. 828, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-brady-gactapp-1968.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack