Carlton v. Hoskins, 50180

• Decision Date: 14 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 50180,50180,2
• Citation: 134 Ga.App. 558,215 S.E.2d 321
• Parties: Gertrude Y. CARLTON et al. v. James HOSKINS et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 321

215 S.E.2d 321

134 Ga.App. 558

Gertrude Y. CARLTON et al. v. James HOSKINS et al.

No. 50180.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

April 14, 1975.

Hatcher & Daniel, Ross L. Hatcher, III, Rossville, for appellants.

Walton, Smith, Shaw, Maddox & Davidson, James D. Maddox, Rome, for appellees.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

QUILLIAN, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Gertrude Carlton and her husband, O. B. Carlton, have appealed from a judgment in the trial court on a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants, James Hoskins, Carl Hoskins, and Construction & Improvement Specialty Company of Chattanooga. Plaintiffs resided in Apartment No. 110 of an apartment complex owned and operated by defendants. Another defendant in the original suit, Bert Styles, owned a camper-trailer parked within the complex. Plaintiffs allege that employees of the City of LaFayette moved the camper-trailer to a position within the complex in front of the manager's office and the adjoining laundry room. Plaintiffs further allege that the tongue of the trailer, approximately six feet in length, extended over the sidewalk for two-thirds of its length, at a height of about two and one-half feet. According to the complaint, Mrs Carlton was returning from the laundry room at approximately 9:00 p.m. on the evening of March 23, 1973, with a basket of laundry and while walking along the dimly lighted sidewalk in front of the manager's office and the laundry room, fell over the tongue of the camper-trailer, sustaining the complained of injuries.

Defendants moved the trial court to enter summary judgment 'upon the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact . . .' and relied upon their pleadings and an affidavit of Mrs. Betty S. Bennett, the manager of the apartment complex for appellees. Mrs. Bennett stated that plaintiffs executed a lease which contained as Clause 15 therein: 'Landlord shall not be liable for any damages or injuries to persons or property occurring in or about the premises, and Tenant shall save Landlord harmless from any and all such injuries, and from any damages arising from any cause whatsoever in or about the premises.' The trial court entered judgment for defendants but stated no basis for the decision. Held:

While it is not against public policy to enter into a lease agreement containing a 'hold-harmless' clause, such contracts are not favored by the law and will be strictly construed against the indemnitee. Ragland et al. v. Rooker et al., 124 Ga.App. 361, 183 S.E.2d 579. Generally, the purpose of an exculpatory clause between a lessor and lessee is to relieve the lessor from liability for damages caused by defects in the leased unit. Insurance Co. of North America v. Gulf Oil Corp. and vice versa, 106 Ga.App. 382, 127 S.E.2d 43. Further, such exculpatory clause, although effective to release the lessor from liability...