Pruitt v. Mayor of Savannah

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pruitt v. Mayor of Savannah

172 S.E. 116, 48 Ga. App. 145, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 502

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1933

Docket23495

StatusPublished

This text of 172 S.E. 116 (Pruitt v. Mayor of Savannah) 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

Pruitt v. Mayor of Savannah, 172 S.E. 116, 48 Ga. App. 145, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 502 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

1. Where the plaintiff had for some eighteen years known of an elevation in a city sidewalk in front of his place of business, which he had occupied for five months, which elevation had been constructed by the owner of the building for loaded trucks to move from the doorway of the building to the street, and where plaintiff knew that persons had been injured by stumbling against the same, and where on a dark night, when it was raining hard and when the rain had rendered the sidewalk on each side of the elevation slick, the plaintiff stepped out of the doorway of said building onto the elevation and onto the sidewalk, and his foot slipped by reason of the slick condition of the sidewalk and he fell and was hurt, the city was not liable to him in damages on account of said elevation. Especially is this true when it appears that on the night in question plaintiff realized the danger of stepping out into the night, and undertook to step so as to prevent stumbling or slipping.

2. This case is not one in which the plaintiff had limited knowledge of the existence of the elevation and danger or had forgotten about the defect and had exercised ordinary care in his own behalf; but is a case in which he knew of the danger and, appreciating the extent of the hazard and the probability of his being injured, voluntarily undertook the risk, trusting to the extra precaution which he resolved to take as a means to prevent his being injured thereby. This ruling is fully in line with the rulings made in Samples v. City of Atlanta, 95 Ga. 110, and Idlett v. City of Atlanta, 123 Ga. 821,

[146]*146Decided December 20, 1933. F. A. Tuten, Travis & Travis, for plaintiff. Shelby Myriclc, J. G. Hester, for defendant.

3. There was no question for a jury to determine, the foregoing facts appearing from plaintiff’s own evidence, and the court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Sutton, J.

1. Where the plaintiff had for some eighteen years known of an elevation in a city sidewalk in front of his place of business, which he had occupied for five months, which elevation had been constructed by the owner of the building for loaded trucks to move from the doorway of the building to the street, and where plaintiff knew that persons had been injured by stumbling against the same, and where on a dark night, when it was raining hard and when the rain had rendered the sidewalk on each side of the elevation slick, the plaintiff stepped out of the doorway of said building onto the elevation and onto the sidewalk, and his foot slipped by reason of the slick condition of the sidewalk and he fell and was hurt, the city was not liable to him in damages on account of said elevation. Especially is this true when it appears that on the night in question plaintiff realized the danger of stepping out into the night, and undertook to step so as to prevent stumbling or slipping.

2. This case is not one in which the plaintiff had limited knowledge of the existence of the elevation and danger or had forgotten about the defect and had exercised ordinary care in his own behalf; but is a case in which he knew of the danger and, appreciating the extent of the hazard and the probability of his being injured, voluntarily undertook the risk, trusting to the extra precaution which he resolved to take as a means to prevent his being injured thereby. This ruling is fully in line with the rulings made in Samples v. City of Atlanta, 95 Ga. 110, and Idlett v. City of Atlanta, 123 Ga. 821,

[146]*146Decided December 20, 1933. F. A. Tuten, Travis & Travis, for plaintiff. Shelby Myriclc, J. G. Hester, for defendant.

3. There was no question for a jury to determine, the foregoing facts appearing from plaintiff’s own evidence, and the court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.E. 116, 48 Ga. App. 145, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pruitt-v-mayor-of-savannah-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack