Waddell v. WOFFORD OIL COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Waddell v. WOFFORD OIL COMPANY

66 S.E.2d 806, 84 Ga. App. 617, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 742

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 12, 1951

Docket33624

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 66 S.E.2d 806 (Waddell v. WOFFORD OIL COMPANY) 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

Waddell v. WOFFORD OIL COMPANY, 66 S.E.2d 806, 84 Ga. App. 617, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

1. “A landlord is not liable for injuries to his tenant arising from a patent defect in the premises, existing at the time of the lease, and of which the tenant knew or had means of knowing, equal to those of the landlord” (McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga. App. 106 (1), 107 S. E. 563; Godard v. Peavy, 32 Ga App. 121 (1), 122 S. E. 634); and “In the absence of an express agreement to do so, a landlord is under no duty to repair a patent defect in the rented premises where its existence was known to the tenant at the time the rent contract was entered into.” Mitchell v. Clark, 39 Ga. App. 714(1) (148 S. E. 420).

2. “ ‘Members of a tenant’s family, his guests, servants, employees, or others present by his express or implied invitation, stand in his shoes, • and are controlled by the rules governing the tenant as to the right of recovery for injuries arising from failure to keep the premises in repair.’” Chamberlain v. Nash, 54 Ga. App. 508(2) (188 S. E. 276).

3. The allegations of the petition in this case, construed most strongly against the plaintiff show that the alleged defective installation of the machinery which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries was a patent condition readily discernible to the plaintiff and his employer, the defendant’s tenant, that in consequence thereof the plaintiff knew of the condition, and standing in the shoes of his employer, the tenant, assumed any risks incidental to the use of the premises which were rented in the condition described in the petition. Such being the case, the • trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Worrill, J.

1. “A landlord is not liable for injuries to his tenant arising from a patent defect in the premises, existing at the time of the lease, and of which the tenant knew or had means of knowing, equal to those of the landlord” (McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga. App. 106 (1), 107 S. E. 563; Godard v. Peavy, 32 Ga App. 121 (1), 122 S. E. 634); and “In the absence of an express agreement to do so, a landlord is under no duty to repair a patent defect in the rented premises where its existence was known to the tenant at the time the rent contract was entered into.” Mitchell v. Clark, 39 Ga. App. 714(1) (148 S. E. 420).

2. “ ‘Members of a tenant’s family, his guests, servants, employees, or others present by his express or implied invitation, stand in his shoes, • and are controlled by the rules governing the tenant as to the right of recovery for injuries arising from failure to keep the premises in repair.’” Chamberlain v. Nash, 54 Ga. App. 508(2) (188 S. E. 276).

3. The allegations of the petition in this case, construed most strongly against the plaintiff show that the alleged defective installation of the machinery which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries was a patent condition readily discernible to the plaintiff and his employer, the defendant’s tenant, that in consequence thereof the plaintiff knew of the condition, and standing in the shoes of his employer, the tenant, assumed any risks incidental to the use of the premises which were rented in the condition described in the petition. Such being the case, the • trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E.2d 806, 84 Ga. App. 617, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waddell-v-wofford-oil-company-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack