Rogers v. City of Atlanta

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rogers v. City of Atlanta

84 S.E. 555, 143 Ga. 153, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 329

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 11, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 555 (Rogers v. City of Atlanta) 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

Rogers v. City of Atlanta, 84 S.E. 555, 143 Ga. 153, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 329 (Ga. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

The court properly sustained a general demurrer to a petition in a suit brought against a city for the recovery of damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff in consequence of having stepped into a hole which had been cut in the floor of a building occupied by her as a tenant, by the firemen of the city, who, in response to an alarm sent in by the daughter of the plaintiff, came to the building, and, finding smoke issuing from parts of the building, cut the hole either for the purpose of ascertaining the character of the fire or so that they might reach it with water. Even if the cutting of the hole and the leaving of it in an exposed condition was negligence on the part of the firemen, the city was not liable in damages to a person injured in consequence of the negligence. A municipality is not liable for the acts of its servants, and officers in the performance of public or governmental duties. Love v. Atlanta, 95 Ga. 129 (22 S. E. 29, 51 Am. St. R. 64) ; Wright v. Augusta, 78 Ga. 241 (6 Am. St. R. 256) ; Watson v. Atlanta, 136 Ga. 370 (71 S. E. 664) ; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. (5th ed.), § 1661; Mayor etc. of Savannah v. Jordan, 142 Ga. 409 (83 S. E. 109).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

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

Beck, J.

The court properly sustained a general demurrer to a petition in a suit brought against a city for the recovery of damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff in consequence of having stepped into a hole which had been cut in the floor of a building occupied by her as a tenant, by the firemen of the city, who, in response to an alarm sent in by the daughter of the plaintiff, came to the building, and, finding smoke issuing from parts of the building, cut the hole either for the purpose of ascertaining the character of the fire or so that they might reach it with water. Even if the cutting of the hole and the leaving of it in an exposed condition was negligence on the part of the firemen, the city was not liable in damages to a person injured in consequence of the negligence. A municipality is not liable for the acts of its servants, and officers in the performance of public or governmental duties. Love v. Atlanta, 95 Ga. 129 (22 S. E. 29, 51 Am. St. R. 64) ; Wright v. Augusta, 78 Ga. 241 (6 Am. St. R. 256) ; Watson v. Atlanta, 136 Ga. 370 (71 S. E. 664) ; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. (5th ed.), § 1661; Mayor etc. of Savannah v. Jordan, 142 Ga. 409 (83 S. E. 109).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.E. 555, 143 Ga. 153, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-city-of-atlanta-ga-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack