Miller v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Miller v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

131 S.E.2d 211, 107 Ga. App. 781, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 981

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1963

Docket40125

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 S.E.2d 211 (Miller v. Farmers & Merchants Bank) 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

Miller v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 131 S.E.2d 211, 107 Ga. App. 781, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 981 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

This is a slip-down case in which a verdict was directed in favor of the defendant bank. Error is assigned on direction of the verdict in the sole special ground of the motion for new trial, which was overruled. Held:

The petition alleged actual and constructive knowledge that the bank floor where plaintiff fell was “covered in oily, greasy and slick film of wax.” Actual knowledge was not shown on [782]*782the trial but in fact was denied by the defendant’s president. Neither was constructive knowledge shown because there was no evidence as to how long the alleged condition had existed before plaintiff fell. In the absence of such proof, it is well-settled that there can be no inference of constructive notice. See, e.g., Watson v. Citizens &c. Bank, 103 Ga. App. 535 (120 SE2d 62) and citations; Setzers Super Stores v. Higgins, 104 Ga. App. 116 (1), 121 (121 SE2d 305); Home Fed. Savings &c. Assn. v. Hulsey, 104 Ga. App. 123 (121 SE2d 311). The motion for directed verdict was properly granted and the judgment overruling the motion for new trial is

Decided May 14, 1963. Fullbright & Duffey, Harl C. Duffey, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Robert Edward Surles, contra.

Affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

This is a slip-down case in which a verdict was directed in favor of the defendant bank. Error is assigned on direction of the verdict in the sole special ground of the motion for new trial, which was overruled. Held:

The petition alleged actual and constructive knowledge that the bank floor where plaintiff fell was “covered in oily, greasy and slick film of wax.” Actual knowledge was not shown on [782]*782the trial but in fact was denied by the defendant’s president. Neither was constructive knowledge shown because there was no evidence as to how long the alleged condition had existed before plaintiff fell. In the absence of such proof, it is well-settled that there can be no inference of constructive notice. See, e.g., Watson v. Citizens &c. Bank, 103 Ga. App. 535 (120 SE2d 62) and citations; Setzers Super Stores v. Higgins, 104 Ga. App. 116 (1), 121 (121 SE2d 305); Home Fed. Savings &c. Assn. v. Hulsey, 104 Ga. App. 123 (121 SE2d 311). The motion for directed verdict was properly granted and the judgment overruling the motion for new trial is

Decided May 14, 1963. Fullbright & Duffey, Harl C. Duffey, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Robert Edward Surles, contra.

Affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E.2d 211, 107 Ga. App. 781, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-farmers-merchants-bank-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack