Rowland v. Byrd

195 S.E. 458, 57 Ga. App. 390, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 607
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 24, 1938
Docket26691
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 195 S.E. 458 (Rowland v. Byrd) 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
Rowland v. Byrd, 195 S.E. 458, 57 Ga. App. 390, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

Stephens, P. J.

1. A child who strolls upon private premises to play, without the permission or consent of the owner or person in charge, is a trespasser upon the premises. The owner of premises, or person in charge thereof, owes no duty to keep the premises in a condition safe for trespassers who come thereon without the knowledge of the owner or person in charge, although the owner may have knowledge that it is customary for such trespassers to come upon the premises. It is not a violation of any duty owed hy the owner of premises to a child who, as a trespasser, comes upon the premises to play, although the owner may know that it is a custom for children to come upon the premises to play, for the owner to permit the roof of a vacant building situated on. the premises to be in such a defective condition that a drain-pipe which is on the building for the purpose of carrying off water is in such an insecure condition that if it is hit by a gust of wind it will fall. Where the drain-pipe falls upon a child who is upon the premises as a trespasser without the knowledge of the owner, although the owner may reasonably have anticipated the presence of the child, the owner is not liable for the injury. The act of the owner in permitting the premises to be in such a state of bad repair is not a wilful and wanton act. Rawlins v. Pickren, 45 Ga. App. 261 (164 S. E. 223).

2. The petition, in a suit by the child against the owner of the premises, to recover damages for the injuries alleged to have been received by the child, failed to set out a cause of action, and the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Craig v. BAILEY BROS. REALTY, INC.
697 S.E.2d 888 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Miller v. General Motors Corp.
565 N.E.2d 687 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1990)
Brooks v. Logan
213 S.E.2d 916 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Barber v. Steele
211 S.E.2d 133 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Crosby v. Savannah Electric & Power Co.
150 S.E.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Butler v. Brogdon
138 S.E.2d 604 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 S.E. 458, 57 Ga. App. 390, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowland-v-byrd-gactapp-1938.