Stanfield v. Forrest Five to Five Dollar Stores
This text of 99 S.E.2d 167 (Stanfield v. Forrest Five to Five Dollar Stores) 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
99 S.E.2d 167, 95 Ga. App. 739, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanfield-v-forrest-five-to-five-dollar-stores-gactapp-1957.