Johnson v. Collins

26 S.E. 744, 98 Ga. 271
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 30, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 26 S.E. 744 (Johnson v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Collins, 26 S.E. 744, 98 Ga. 271 (Ga. 1896).

Opinions

Atkinson, Justice.

The official report states the facts.

1. It will be observed that the plaintiff alleges in her declaration, that although the steps were out of repair and she had known this for some time, she had no reason to suppose their use would be dangerous, but did suppose that the props which she and her son had used would be sufficient. The negligence of the landlord was alleged, and the tenant rests her case upon the theory that though she was advised that the premises were in need of repair, and that although she knew they were out of repair, she did not know their use would be dangerous. The question as to whether or not she was in the exercise of ordinary care in the use of the steps, was a question of fact to be passed upon by a jury; and to convict her of negligence, it was necessary to appear, not only that the steps, which were the cause of her injury, were defective, but that she likewise [knew of the danger. If they were out of repair, but not so obviously so as that a person of ordinary prudence must have known they were dangerous, then she was entitled to go to the jury upon the question as to whether there was .an apparent danger in their use. As long as she did not [274]*274know they were dangerous, or had no reasonáble ground to-suspect such to be the fact, her use of them could not be legally considered negligent. She alleges that she. did not. know they were dangerous. There is no allegation from which the inference can be drawn as matter of law that they were so obviously dangerous as to have put a prudent person upon notice of any danger which might result from their use; and the demurrer to the declaration admitting the facts, it should have been overruled, and the questions of faGt made in the case submitted to the jury.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Scott Development Co. v. Munn
157 S.E.2d 821 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Canfield v. Howard
136 S.E.2d 431 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
King v. Moffett
121 S.E.2d 405 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Knowles v. LaRue
116 S.E.2d 248 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Holloway v. Feinberg
110 S.E.2d 413 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Garner v. LaMarr
76 S.E.2d 721 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Shattles v. Blanchard
73 S.E.2d 112 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Bixby v. Sinclair Refining Company
40 S.E.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Coker v. Murphey
18 S.E.2d 572 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Lee v. Malone
191 S.E. 494 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Mathis v. Gazan
181 S.E. 503 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Dessau v. Achord
178 S.E. 396 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Krapf v. Sternberg
172 S.E. 69 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Wallace v. Adams
169 S.E. 852 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Williams v. Mayes
166 S.E. 876 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Bullard v. Asa G. Candler Inc.
122 S.E. 813 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Miller v. Jones
120 S.E. 672 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Harris v. Riser
119 S.E. 432 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
McGee v. Hardacre
107 S.E. 563 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Alexander v. Owen
89 S.E. 437 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 S.E. 744, 98 Ga. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-collins-ga-1896.