Butler v. Lewman
Decision Date | 10 June 1902 |
Citation | 42 S.E. 98,115 Ga. 752 |
Parties | BUTLER v. LEWMAN et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It is the proper practice for the plaintiff in an action against several defendants to bring to this court for review, by a single bill of exceptions, separate judgments sustaining separate demurrers filed by the defendants below.
2. The owner of a building which has been damaged by fire, who delivers the same to an independent contractor for the purpose of repairing it generally and putting it in thorough order, and who surrenders to the latter full possession and complete control of the premises, is not, merely because of the peculiar arrangement of some of the interior appointments of the building, such as an elevator shaft, stairways, etc which, under certain conditions, may become sources of hidden danger to one unfamiliar with their location, liable to any person going into the building by invitation of the contractor for damages resulting from physical injuries sustained because of exposure to such danger.
3. In such a case the contractor is, in law, chargeable with knowledge of the existence of such appointments and their peculiar location, and therefore, relatively to the servant of one whom he employs to do a portion of the repairing under the duty of taking proper steps to guard him against any injury likely to occur by reason of the existence of such danger.
Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action by P. G. Butler against M. T. Lewman and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Modified.
Shepard Bryan and Harvey Hill, for plaintiff in error.
Rosser & Carter and Candler & Thomson, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error, Butler, brought in the city court of Atlanta an action for damages against Daniel O. Dougherty William A. Speer, Mrs. Katie Speer, Mrs. John Silvey, M. T Lewman & Co., a partnership, and the persons who were members of that firm. The facts upon which he based his alleged right of recovery were, as gathered from his petition, in substance as follows: The four defendants first named "are the owners, as tenants in common, of the land and building fronting twenty-five (25) feet on the east side of Loyd street, and known as lot No. 2 in the plat of the Markham House property," in the city of Atlanta. On that date the plaintiff, The On the date above mentioned He "started to descend from said third floor by means of said stairway, [and] went toward the door leading to said stairway; but on account of the darkness in the interior of the building, and on account of the darkness within the wall inclosing said stairways and elevator shaft, and because all of said doors stood so close together, petitioner entered the door leading to the elevator shaft, and fell down said shaft, three stories, and into the basement of said building," sustaining serious and permanent injuries. He ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barron v. Barron
... ... joint motion for a new trial, even though separate answers ... had been filed by them. Butler v. Lewman, 115 Ga ... 752, 42 S.E. 98; East Atlanta Land Co. v. Mower, 138 ... Ga. 380, 75 S.E. 418; Higdon v. Bell, 144 Ga. 485, ... 87 S.E ... ...
-
Camp v. Curry-arrington Co
...been applied, and that under it an affirmative answer to this question could have been made. See, in this connection, Butler v. Lewman, 115 Ga. 752(3), 42 S. E. 9S; Palmer Brick Co. v. Chenall, 119 Ga. 837(3), 47 S. E. 329; Monahan v. National Realty Co., 4 Ga. App. 680 (3), 62 S. E. 127; S......
-
Middleton v. P. Sanford Ross, Inc.
...his premises in safe condition. Indermaur v. Dames, 1 L.R., C.P. 274; Huey v. Atlanta, 8 Ga.App. 597, 70 S.E. 71; Butler v. Lewman, 115 Ga. 752, 758, 42 S.E. 98; Montrose (D.C.) 179 F. 1000; Pioneer S.S. Co. v. McCann, 170 F. 873, 96 C.C.A. 49. And he owes such duty to independent contracto......
-
Camp v. Curry-Arrington Co.
... ... affirmative answer to this question could have been made ... See, in this connection, Butler v. Lewman, 115 Ga ... 752(3), 42 S.E. 98; Palmer Brick Co. v. Chenall, 119 ... Ga. 837(3), 47 S.E. 329; Monahan v. National Realty Co., ... 4 ... ...