Cooper v. Anderson, 36812

Decision Date04 December 1957
Docket Number2,No. 36812,Nos. 1,36812,s. 1
Citation96 Ga.App. 800,101 S.E.2d 770
PartiesP. A. COOPER, by Next Friend, v. E. R. ANDERSON et al
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

1. To relieve one who commits a negligent act which may have contributed to an injury from legal liability therefor, there must be intervening unforeseen causes which break the causal connection between the original wrongdoer and the subsequent injury, and make his part in the injury or damage only incidental.

2. A small child who accompanies his customer parent into a store is an invitee on the premises.

This is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the joint negligence of both the defendants named in the petition.

The petition alleged: that the defendants E. R. Anderson of 4 Dartmouth Street, Avondale Estates, DeKalb County, Georgia, doing business as The Tasty Bakery, which is located and operated and is duly registered in the State of Georgia, County of DeKalb, being at 2040 North Decatur Road, and Scarboro Enterprises, Inc., a real estate rental corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia, which has its principal place of business in the State and county at 449 Clairmont Road, N. E.; that the defendants reside in, and have offices and places of business within the county and are subject to the jurisdiction of DeKalb Superior Court; that the defendant Scarboro Enterprises, Inc., is the owner and lessor of the building which The Tasty Bakery occupies and in which the bakery carries on business as 2040 North Decatur Road; that the defendants have injured and damaged the petitioner and are jointly and severally indebted to the petitioner in the sum of $35,000 by reason of the facts hereinafter alleged; that on September 2, 1956, at approximately 9:30 a.m., petitioner, a child of the age of nine months, was in the company of his father, Dr. Paul Arthur Cooper, and petitioner was being carried by his father into the business establishment of the defendant, E. R. Anderson, the establishment being duly registered as The Tasty Bakery and located at 2040 North Decatur Road; the purpose of this visit being the purchase of the bakery's products by the petitioner's father; that petitioner's father entered the front entrance of the bakery carrying petitioner in his arms, and upon entry and as he stepped forward inside the entrance, petitioner's father shifted petitioner up toward his shoulder, holding petitioner in his arm with petitioner's body resting against and facing petitioner's father's chest and shoulder and elevating petitioner's head above that of petitioner's father's head in the manner in which small children are often carried; that petitioner's father is a man of the height of six feet four and one-half inches; that immediately inside the entrance of the bakery there was at this time a revolving, overhead fan with blades approximately two feet to three feet in length hanging from the ceiling of the bakery with the blades being seven feet from the floor; and the blades when revolving reach within two to three feet of the top of the entrance to the bakery; that the fan was in operation and revolving at a rapid rate of speed at the time petitioner and his father entered the bakery in the morning of September 2, 1956; that upon moving from the entrance into the aforementioned bakery, petitioner's father heard a rasping, scraping noise or thud, followed very shortly by the horrendous and agonizing screams of his child, the petitioner; that petitioner's father had no knowledge of the cause of the rasping noise or thud nor of the petitioner's violent, painful screams until he looked at the child's slashed and bloody face and forehead and at the revolving fan overhead; that petitioner's father could not observe the aforementioned fan in that it was placed in such close proximity to the entrance that petitioner's father upon entering said bakery was directly under the fan blades upon stepping forward and was unable to observe the fan in his normal visual view in looking straight forward as he approached and entered the doorway; that the slashing blow of the fan blade placed and maintained in the aforesaid position caused petitioner excruciating and unbearable pain and also caused the petitioner's forehead and face to be slashed and cut; that as a result of receiving the grievous wound, the petitioner was immediately taken to Emory Hospital, and Dr. Frank Kanthak, a surgeon, was called to examine and treat the petitioner; but as an operating room could not be secured in Emory Hospital, the petitioner was immediately taken to Georgia Baptist Hospital; that the petitioner was anesthetized by Dr. Kanthak at Georgia Baptist Hospital and the wound was inspected and found to be an avulsion type wound with a blunt tearing down to the glabella and the frontal bone; the wound was cleaned and closed with interrupted stitches by Dr. Kanthak and examined again on September 15, 1956 by Dr. Kanthak that on November 2, 1956, the petitioner's wound was again examined by Dr. Kanthak and the scar proved to be an unsightly U-shaped scar over the root of the nose, longer on the right than on the left; the scar being one-quarter inch wide at the widest part and being relatively wide throughout, with a depression which can be felt beneath the scar; that due to the severity of the wound and the relative width of the scar, a future operation will be necessary and the scar will have to be excised and re-repaired; that as a result of the said injury the petitioner has suffered pain and suffering and will suffer future embarrassment and mental pain due to the unsightly, ugly and severe scar which will permanently disfigure petitioner's face; that the aforementioned injuries to your petitioner were directly and proximately caused by the negligent acts of the defendants in the following particulars; the defendant's negligently installing and allowing the fan to remain at the aforementioned height of seven feet from the floor; the defendants installing and allowing the fan to remain in its dangerous and deceptive situation amounting to a hidden peril, on the order of a mantrap or pitfall; that the defendants could and should have foreseen the lurking danger of injury being caused by the fan due to its position immediately inside the entrance to the bakery and its low position not allowing adequate overhead room to permit freedom from injury in the normal course of foreseeable events; that petitioner brings this suit to recover for injuries, physical suffering, future mental suffering and permanent disfigurement, and lays his damage in the amount of $35,000.

The defendant, Anderson, demurred generally as follows: 'Defendant demurs generally to the complaint upon the ground that the facts therein alleged are insufficient in law to constitute a cause of action in that the facts alleged show that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as a matter of law; defendant demurs specially to paragraph 6, and in particular that portion of paragraph 6 reading as follows: 'in the manner in which small children are often carried', upon the ground that said allegation constitutes a conclusion on the part of the plaintiff that, what petitioner's father did in carrying petitioner in his arms was often done when small children were carried in the arms of a person; defendant further demurs to that portion of paragraph 6 referred to herein, upon the further ground that the same is irrelevant and immaterial in this case, for the reason that what other people might do in carrying children in their arms is irrelevant to any issue in this case and does not constitute a pattern or custom which the plaintiff in this case might rely upon.'

The defendant, Scarboro Enterprises, Inc., demurred generally as follows: 'the defendant demurs generally to the allegations of the petition upon the ground that the allegations do not set forth a cause of action against this defendant and that the allegations of the petition affirmatively show that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover against this defendant; this defendant demurs especially to the allegations in paragraph 6, to wit: 'in the manner in which small children are often carried,' upon the ground that said allegation constitutes a conclusion of the pleader unsupported by any well pleaded ultimate facts, and that allegation is irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in the case; this defendant demurs especially to that allegation in paragraph 8, to wit: 'immediately inside' the entrance to the bakery on the ground that the words 'immediately inside' are vague and indefinite and do not put this defendant on notice as to what distance from the entrance to the bakery that the fan was located; this defendant demurs especially to the allegations in paragraph 12, to wit: 'on such close proximity' on the ground that the words 'on such close proximity' are vague and indefinite and do not put this defendant on notice as to what distance from the entrance to the bakery that the fan was located; this defendant demurs especially to the word, 'deceptive' in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 20 of the petition on the ground that the word 'deceptive' is a conclusion of the pleader unsupported by any well pleaded ultimate facts and is prejudicial and should be stricken from the petition; this defendant demurs to all of subparagraph (b) of paragraph 20 of the petition on the ground that the allegations thereof are conclusions of the pleader unsupported by any well pleaded ultimate facts and are prejudicial and should be stricken from the petition; this defendant demurs to the allegations of paragraph 21 of the petition on the ground that the allegations thereof are too general, vague and indefinite to put this defendant on notice of the position of the fan and that the words, immediately inside the entrance of the bakery and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Adams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1997
    ... ... defect in the premises which renders it unsafe for persons coming upon the premises.' Cooper v. Anderson, 96 Ga.App. 800, 810, 101 S.E.2d 770 [ (1957) ]." Winn-Dixie Stores v. Hardy, supra at ... ...
  • Nesmith v. Starr, s. 42519
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1967
    ...or that of his playmates, since a jury might find that such an intervening act was not unforeseen to the defendants. Cooper v. Anderson, 96 Ga.App. 800(1), 101 S.E.2d 770. While the defendant landlord and its agents would not be liable for the plaintiff's injuries if the dangerous condition......
  • Stryker v. City of Atlanta, Civ. A. No. 1:88-CV-0100-JOF.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • April 5, 1990
    ...of the owner and proprietor alike." Atlanta Braves v. Leslie, 190 Ga.App. 49, 50, 378 S.E.2d 133 (1989) (citing Copper v. Anderson, 96 Ga.App. 800, 808, 101 S.E.2d 770 (1957)). Under Georgia law defendant City of Atlanta had a duty to exercise ordinary care and diligence to protect plaintif......
  • Langston v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 16, 2001
    ...that the invitee will use areas to which the invitation is not extended and which are closed to the invitee. Cooper v. Anderson, 96 Ga.App. 800, 809, 101 S.E.2d 770 (1957), aff'd, 214 Ga. 164, 104 S.E.2d 90 (1958); Augusta Amusements v. Powell, 93 Ga.App. 752, 758, 92 S.E.2d 720 (1956); Cof......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT