Stanfield v. Forrest Five to Five Dollar Stores

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stanfield v. Forrest Five to Five Dollar Stores

99 S.E.2d 167, 95 Ga. App. 739, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 903

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 1, 1957·No. 36669, 36670·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Felton, C. J.

This is not a clear and indisputable case that can be resolved as a matter of law. The object which caused the plaintiff to fall was not so bulky or so generally expected to be in the place where she was injured. The plaintiff alleged that the object was concealed because of poor lighting and that her attention was partially diverted by the wares displayed on the counter. The law is well settled that under such circumstances, the case is one for a jury’s determination. Harris v. Mayes, 94 Ga. App. 505 (2) (95 S. E. 2d 26); Miller v. Bart, 90 Ga. App. 755 (84 S. E. 2d 127); Glover v. City Council of Augusta, 83 Ga. App. 314 (63 S. E. 2d 422); Mason v. Frankel, 49 Ga. App. 145 (2) (174 S. E. 546); King Hardware Co. v. Teplis, 91 Ga. App. 13 (84 S. E. 2d 686); Atlanta Enterprises, Inc. v. Douglass, 93 Ga. App. 237 (91 S. E. 2d 296).

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrers and in dismissing the actions.

Judgments reversed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, C. J.

This is not a clear and indisputable case that can be resolved as a matter of law. The object which caused the plaintiff to fall was not so bulky or so generally expected to be in the place where she was injured. The plaintiff alleged that the object was concealed because of poor lighting and that her attention was partially diverted by the wares displayed on the counter. The law is well settled that under such circumstances, the case is one for a jury’s determination. Harris v. Mayes, 94 Ga. App. 505 (2) (95 S. E. 2d 26); Miller v. Bart, 90 Ga. App. 755 (84 S. E. 2d 127); Glover v. City Council of Augusta, 83 Ga. App. 314 (63 S. E. 2d 422); Mason v. Frankel, 49 Ga. App. 145 (2) (174 S. E. 546); King Hardware Co. v. Teplis, 91 Ga. App. 13 (84 S. E. 2d 686); Atlanta Enterprises, Inc. v. Douglass, 93 Ga. App. 237 (91 S. E. 2d 296).

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrers and in dismissing the actions.

Judgments reversed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

Stanfield v. Forrest Five to Five Dollar Stores, 99 S.E.2d 167, 95 Ga. App. 739, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 903 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

99 S.E.2d 167 (Stanfield v. Forrest Five to Five Dollar Stores) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related