Chotas v. J. P. Allen & Co.
Decision Date | 02 May 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 41881,41881,2 |
Citation | 113 Ga.App. 731,149 S.E.2d 527 |
Parties | Mary B. CHOTAS v. J. P. ALLEN & COMPANY |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
'Where the owner or occupier of premises fails to exercise ordinary care in keeping reasonably safe such premises for the use of those who go upon them as invitees, and where such an invitee is injured by a patent defect in such premises of which the injured party has no actual knowledge, it can not be held as a matter of law that such injured party was lacking in ordinary care in failing to observe the defect in time to avoid the injury.' Wynne v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 159 Ga. 623, 624, 126 S.E. 388.
In this negligence action the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant. The evidence showed that the plaintiff fell and was injured when, as she left the defendant's store, she caught the heel of her shoe in a split or tear in a perforated rubber mat covering the outside entrance to the store.
Pickett, Pickett, Akerman, Shipley & Norvell, Ray C. Norvell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, Atlanta, for appellee.
The plaintiff testified that she did not see the tear or split in the mat before she caught her heel in it because she 'wasn't looking down to see it.' And she answered in the affirmative counsel's questions on cross examination: And she answered 'No' to further questions: The plaintiff also gave the following testimony:
The defendant argues that this evidence shows that the plaintiff's injury was caused by her own negligence. The plaintiff did not say that she was not looking where she was going; she simply says that she was not looking down at the defect in the mat. Her testimony as a whole does not show as a matter of law that in the exercise of ordinary care in all the circumstances the plaintiff should have been looking down and should have seen and avoided the tear in the mat. The pleadings and evidence presented a jury question whether at the time the plaintiff caught her heel in the mat she should have been looking down at the defect. The same issue was presented and, upon this court's request for instruction, the Supreme Court answered and decided: Wynne v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 159 Ga. 623, 628, 126 S.E. 388, 390.
Looking continuously, without intermission for defects in a floor is not required in all circumstances. Lane Drug Stores v. Brooks, 70 Ga.App. 878, 881, 882, 884, 29 S.E.2d 716; cert. denied 70 Ga.App. 902; Rogers v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 45 Ga.App. 772, 166 S.E. 64; Bray v. Barrett, 84 Ga.App. 114, 65 S.E.2d 612; Rothberg v. Bradley, 85 Ga.App. 477, 482, 69 S.E.2d 293; accord Fuller v. Louis Steyerman & Sons, Inc., 46 Ga.App. 830, 836, 169 S.E. 508; Georgia Power Co. v. Sheats, 58 Ga.App. 730, 741, 199 S.E. 582; Sheraton Whitehall Corp. v. McConnell, 88 Ga.App. 725, 77 S.E.2d 752; Wicker v. Roberts, 91 Ga.App. 490, 86 S.E.2d 350; Goldsmith v. Hazelwood, 93 Ga.App. 466, 92 S.E.2d 48; cert. denied 93 Ga.App. 912. 'What is 'a reasonable lookout' depends on all the circumstances at the time and place.' Harris v. Cates, 105 Ga.App. 178, 183, 123 S.E.2d 703, 707, reversed on other grounds 217 Ga. 801, 125 S.E.2d 649.
It cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff is barred from recovery because she could reasonably have apprehended and avoided the consequences of any negligence of the defendant, so that if the jury found both parties to be negligent the rule of comparative negligence applicable 'in other cases' under Code § 105-603 would govern. Ordinarily the facts upon which the plaintiff is barred from recovery-that he failed to avoid the consequences of the defendant's negligence which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. Kroger Co.
...Ga.App. 253(2), 366 S.E.2d 781 (1988); Fletcher v. Family Center, 169 Ga.App. 376(2), 312 S.E.2d 856 (1983); Chotas v. J.P. Allen & Co., 113 Ga.App. 731, 149 S.E.2d 527 (1966). See also Amear v. Hall, 164 Ga.App. 163(2), 296 S.E.2d 611 (1982) ("[A]n invitee is not obliged to inspect the pre......
-
Slaughter v. Slaughter
...Drug Co., Inc., 81 Ga.App. 850, 60 S.E.2d 268; Wynne v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., 159 Ga. 623, 126 S.E. 388; (or in Chotas v. J. P. Allen Co., 113 Ga.App. 731, 149 S.E.2d 527) * * * Whether (it) was dangerous depends largely on whether (it) was such as would not necessarily be seen by the pla......
-
Oliver v. Complements, Ltd.
..."[l]ooking continuously, without intermission, for defects in a floor is not required in all circumstances," Chotas v. J.P. Allen & Co., 113 Ga.App. 731, 733, 149 S.E.2d 527 (1966), and that "[k]nowledge [on the part of the invitee] that one part of a floor is defective is not necessarily k......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Chandler
...13, 15, 84 S.E.2d 686. Looking continuously, without interruption, for defects in the premises is not required. Chotas v. J. P. Allen & Co., 113 Ga.App. 731, 733, 149 S.E.2d 527. The invitee is not bound to avoid tripping or stumbling over articles which are not usually obstructing aisles o......