City of Atlanta v. Ransom, 42737
| Decision Date | 09 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 42737,42737,1 |
| Citation | 155 S.E.2d 687,115 Ga.App. 720 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CITY OF ATLANTA v. Johnie L. RANSOM |
Henry L. Bowden, Ferrin Y. Mathews, Atlanta, for appellant.
James O. Goggins, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant city appeals from the judgment of the trial court overruling its motion for summary judgment in the plaintiff's suit for alleged negligence of the city in maintenance of a public sidewalk. The petition alleged: The plaintiff was injured on a sidewalk constructed and maintained by and under the control of the city, when he stepped and fell at a place where there was a dangerous difference in the height of two concrete slabs of the sidewalk where they joined together. The plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused by the city's negligence in failing to keep and maintain its sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, in failing to discover and remove the defect which had existed at least a year before the plaintiff was injured, in permitting the dangerous condition to exist when it had actual knowledge or should have known of its existence.
The purpose of considering the pleadings on summary judgment is to show the causes alleged in order that by comparison with the evidence it can be determined if the movant should prevail. Crutcher v. Crawford Land Co., Inc., 220 Ga. 298(3), 138 S.E.2d 580; Daniell v. Collins, 222 Ga. 1, 3, 148 S.E.2d 295. The evidence presented upon the motion for summary judgment showed without dispute that the sidewalk at the place where the plaintiff alleged he stepped and fell was not constructed and maintained by the city, but was constructed by Fulton County around 1950 adjoining the city sidewalk, and the line between the properties of the city and Fulton County was where the two sidewalks joined, and the city had never maintained or attempted to maintain the sidewalk on the county property.
The evidence thus pierced the allegation of the petition that the plaintiff was injured on a sidewalk constructed and maintained by and under the control of the city, and showed that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the cause of action raised by the petition. The trial court erred therefore in overruling the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
This is true even though the allegations of this petition might be amendable so as to set out a cause of action on another theory, upon which the evidence considered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 47223
...not applicable. Furthermore, another reason for exonerating the City of Atlanta exists in the controlling case of City of Atlanta v. Ransom, 115 Ga.App. 720, 155 S.E.2d 687, in which the facts are identical to those before the court. As is stated in the city's brief, '(W)hatever hazard conf......
-
Barnum v. Martin
...of Atlanta is liable, it must be due to a defect on its street of which it had actual or implied notice. City of Atlanta v. Ransom, 115 Ga.App. 720, 155 S.E.2d 687. We are called on then to decide whether the evidence warranted a finding of 'defect' and adequate notice thereof by the munici......
-
Bowman v. C.L. McCord Land & Pulpwood Dealer, Inc., 70313
...McCord was not required to negate this theory of liability on motion for summary judgment. Accord City of Atlanta v. Ransom, 115 Ga.App. 720, 721, 155 S.E.2d 687 (1967). Judgment McMURRAY, P.J., and BENHAM, J., concur. ...
-
Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 42514
... ... and to enable the court to intelligently review such appeal.' See Atlanta Transit System v. Harcourt, 94 Ga.App. 503, 95 S.E.2d 41; Dudley v. Sears ... ...