Brown v. Hall
| Decision Date | 07 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 32943,No. 1,32943,1 |
| Citation | 81 Ga.App. 874,60 S.E.2d 414 |
| Parties | BROWN et al. v. HALL et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The petition as amended, alleging that the plaintiff was invited by one of the defendant owners, engaged in the manufacture of a soft drink, to visit their plant (1) 'to sample the products of manufacture and to inspect the machinery, equipment and operation of the plant' and (2) 'at the same time to discuss with him the proposed sale of an automobile which the defendant Pirkle was attempting to sell the plaintiff and his business partner, one Maddox, who was with the plaintiff at the time, 'and that while upon the premises in response to such invitation the plaintiff was injured in described particulars by reason of the collapse of a portion of the building which had been improperly and dangerously constructed by the owners, set forth a cause of action against the defendants and the court did not err in overruling all grounds of demurrer.
Ben Hall brought an action in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, against C. M. Brown, Henry Pirkle and Armand May, the petition as amended, after certain portions of the petition had been stricken on special demurrer, alleging as follows: The defendants have injured and damaged the plaintiff in the sum of $25,000 by reason of the following facts: Valid, legal and binding provisions of the Building Code of the City of Atlanta, in full force and effect at the time complained of in the petition, are: Section 200: "Dead loads' means the weight of walls, partitions, floors, roofs and all other permanent construction of a building. 'Live loads' means all loads except dead loads.' Section 703-1(a): 'Every building and structure shall be designed and erected of sufficient strength in all its parts to sustain safely all live loads depending thereon, whether permanent or temporary, in addition to the dead loads.' In 1947 the defendants owned a lot at the northwest corner of North Avenue and North Angier Avenue in the City of Atlanta, and during the latter part of the said year and early 1948 they erected or caused to the erected upon the said lot a concrete block building. Upon completion of the building they occupied it and engaged in the manufacturing, processing, bottling and selling of a soft drink under the name and style of Mil-Kay Bottling Company, and they were so occupying the said building and so engaged in the said bottling business at all times herein complained of. The building so erected faces in an easterly direction along North Angier Avenue. In the erection and construction thereof the defendants built an overhead storage platform which extended in an easterly and westerly direction and was located directly over business offices used by the defendants within the building. The plans and specifications submitted by the defendants to the building official with the application for permission to erect the building did not provide for the storage platform which the defendants erected or caused to be erected within the building. The storage platform was built without the permission, sanction or consent of the building official, and the plans for the erection of the storage platform were never submitted to him and it was not built under the inspection, supervision, direction or permission or consent of the building official. In making a support for the east [portion?] of the storage platform the defendants nailed or caused to be nailed a piece of board, 2 X 10 inches, to a wall at the east [portion?] of the business office occupied by the defendant Pirkle, the wall extending north and south across the front portion of the building. To the said board a second board, similar in size and width, was placed parallel with and adjacent to the first board and nailed thereto, and a third board of the same dimensions was nailed onto the second board in the same manner as the second board had been nailed onto the first, making a shelf of the 2 X 10 boards, which protruded some six inches from the said wall, the boards being fastened together with twelve penny nails. No other support of any kind or nature was used to support the said boards nailed to the said wall, and the east end of the storage platform was rested upon and nailed to the said 2 X 10 boards. The east end of the platform had no support of any kind or nature except the 2 X 10 boards on which it rested and the said east end of the platform was insecure and unsuited for storage purposes as will more fully appear hereinafter. After the storage platform was erected the defendants stored large quantities of drink cases and bottles on the platform and more particularly along the east end thereof. The said heavy loads placed along the east end of the storage platform caused the said 2 X 10 boards to pull apart, sag and begin separating from one another. The separating of the boards, the pulling apart and the sagging of the same caused the plastering in the ceiling of the office of the defendant Pirkle to break loose and crack, and also to break loose and crack along the east wall of the office which further showed to the defendants that the platform was insecure at the east end thereof and unsuitable for the storage of crates and bottles. The cracked condition in the wall and ceiling was known to the defendants. The pulling loose of the east end of the storage platform, the insecurity thereof, and the storage of large quantities of bottles and crates along the east end of the platform constituted a 'man trap' of which the defendants had knowledge or in the exercise of reasonable care could have known about, and such was the condition of the premises at the time herein complained of.
On the morning of May 3, 1948, the defendant Pirkle invited the plaintiff to the said plant, and the plaintiff called on him at the said premises on that date on or about 10:15 a. m., the nature of the invitation being more fully set out hereinafter. At the said time there was on the storage platform large quantities of drink cases and bottles, placed there by the defendants, their agents or employees, which load the platform was unable to support because of the defective conditions hereinbefore set out. The plaintiff was extended an invitation by the said Pirkle to visit the plant to sample the products of manufacture and to inspect the machinery, equipment and operations of the plant, and at the same time to discuss with him the proposed sale of an automobile which the defendant Pirkle was attempting to sell the plaintiff and his business partner, one Maddox, who was with the plaintiff at the time. The said Pirkle was in charge of running the business for the defendants and the plaintiff was led by him to believe that the premises were intended to be used by visitors, and that the said use was not only acquiesced in by the defendants but it was in accordance with the intention and design with which the premises were allowed by the defendants to be used. Upon calling at the defendants' place of business the plaintiff was met by the defendant Pirkle, who told the plaintiff and the said Maddox to come into his office, and the plaintiff entered the office pursuant to the invitation then and there extended and in accordance with the invitation which had been extended as hereinbefore set out. The plaintiff had been in the office only a few minutes when suddenly, and without warning or notice, the said 2 X 10 boards completely gave way and pulled loose, separated and sheared off from one another and from the wall, and the said storage platform at the east end of the same was without support and fell onto and against the said ceiling, the ceiling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v. Flagler Co.
...or whether his presence was for his own convenience, or was for business with one other than the owner or occupier. Brown v. Hall, 81 Ga.App. 874, 880, 60 S.E.2d 414; Pries v. Atlanta Enterprises, 66 Ga.App. 464, 467-468, 17 S.E.2d 902; Cook v. Southern R. Co., 53 Ga.App. 723, 725, 187 S.E.......
-
Mcgarity v. Hart Electric Membership Corp...
...would want him to be visible on premises) (physical precedent only). 16. See Frankel, supra; Findley, supra. 17. See Brown v. Hall, 81 Ga.App. 874, 60 S.E.2d 414 (1950). 18. See Howard v. Gram Corp., 268 Ga.App. 466, 469, 602 S.E.2d 241 (2004) (even if the injured party does not have a pres......
-
Atkins v. Tri-Cities Steel, Inc.
...render his presence of mutual aid to both, or whether his presence on the premises was for his own convenience...' " Brown v. Hall, 81 Ga.App. 874, 880, 60 S.E.2d 414 (1950). There must be a mutuality of interest in the subject to which the plaintiff's business related, even if the subject ......
-
Mcgarity v. Hart electric Membership Corp.
...evidence that owner would want him to be visible on premises) (physical precedent only). 16. See Frankel, supra; Findley, supra. 17. See Brown, supra. 18. See Howard v. Gram Corp., 268 Ga. App. 466, 469 (602 SE2d 241) (2004) (even if the injured party does not have a present intent to make ......