Brand v. Pope, 38761

• Decision Date: 10 April 1961
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 38761,38761,1
• Citation: 103 Ga.App. 489,119 S.E.2d 723
• Parties: Margaret A. BRAND v. W. D. POPE, Jr
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 723

119 S.E.2d 723

103 Ga.App. 489

Margaret A. BRAND v. W. D. POPE, Jr.

No. 38761.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

April 10, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court

The petition failed to set forth a cause of action against the defendant, and the judgment of the trial court sustaining the general demurrer was not error.

Margaret A. Brand sued W. D. Pope, Jr., to recover for injuries sustained by her while an invitee in the defendant's home. The petition, with reference to how the plaintiff's injuries occurred, alleged: 'That the defendant invited the plaintiff to his residence for the purpose of visiting with his family; that between the living room and the Florida room of the premises of the defendant, there existed a sliding glass door separating the aforesaid two rooms; that said glass sliding door was composed of clear glass and unmarked in any manner whatsoever, and in no way could a person using due care and diligence for her own safety observe and detect that a glass panel existed if in a closed condition; that the plaintiff, the defendant's wife and a third person, a lady friend, had been visiting in the living room area of the defendant's premises all afternoon on said date complained of herein, the sliding glass panel door having remained open during said time; that at approximately 6:15 p. m. o'clock, on said date and place complained of herein, the defendant, Mr. W. D. Pope, Jr., arrived at his residence and was proceeding through the Florida room area into the living room towards the company, including his wife, the plaintiff and the third person, whereupon, the plaintiff proceeded from the living room to meet the defendant to extend her greetings; that during the aforesaid afternoon, the servant of the defendant acting in behalf of the defendant and within the scope of her employ had closed said clear glass paneled unmarked door without the knowledge of the plaintiff, but with the knowledge of the defendant's wife; that as the plaintiff proceeded to greet the defendant, she crashed into said glass panel door, smashing into it and shattering her face and body into the glass panel and in fact, the plaintiff went through the said glass panel door and injuring her very severely and permanently as hereinafter shown'. As to the defendant's negligence, it was alleged: 'Plaintiff shows that said glass panel unmarked door could not have been discovered by her and was not discovered by her in the exercise of that degree of care which the law imposed on her, but could or would have been known to the defendant in the exercise of ordinary care, that said glass panel door was not visible to the plaintiff for the reason that it was unmarked and clear as though it was not present at said time of the complaint and in fact, was not visible or obvious to the plaintiff that said glass panel door constituted a dangerous condition and unsafe; that the defendant was guilty of the additional acts of negligence: (a) In causing and permitting said glass panel door to be closed while the plaintiff was in the premises of the defendant, rendering said premises unsafe and extremely dangerous, and in fact, injuring the plaintiff as aforesaid, in violation of the requirements of ordinary care and diligence; (b) In failing to warn your petitioner of the peril and hazard of walking across said living room into said Florida room which had been rendered dangerous by having said glass unmarked panel door to be closed, in failure to open said door; (c) In failing to provide your petitioner who was an invitee and guest lawfully upon the premises of the defendant with safe means of ingress from and egress to the adjoining room to the living room after requesting the plaintiff to come to the premises of the defendant; (d) In failing to caution the petitioner of the dangerous and unsafe condition of...