Crooke v. Lumpkin, 34809

• Decision Date: 02 December 1953
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 34809,34809,2
• Citation: 89 Ga.App. 277,79 S.E.2d 321
• Parties: CROOKE v. LUMPKIN
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 321

79 S.E.2d 321

89 Ga.App. 277

CROOKE v. LUMPKIN.

No. 34809.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Dec. 2, 1953.

Jessee & Wright, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Poole, Pearce & Hall, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GARDNER, Presiding Judge.

1. As to the following allegations of negligence--that there was no fire-fighting equipment or fire alarms; that no inspection of the premises was made on the night in question, contrary to the custom of the management; that there was no near access to a fire alarm or fire plug, no accessible measure for reporting fire, and that the telephone of the manager was in a locked building, for which reason the fire was not reported until nearly one-half hour after its discovery; that the construction of the buildings was not fire-resistant, and was so built that draft and suction were set up therein--we do not think that they, separately or in conjunction with each other, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion and in the dissenting opinion of Irwin v. Torbert, 204 Ga. 111, 126, 127, 49 S.E.2d 70.

2. As to the questions of negligence per se, ground 14 of the defendant's renewed special demurrer to paragraph 26-A of the amended petition was properly sustained because the petition failed to make allegations bringing the building in question within the city ordinance therein set out. Also, the amendment of paragraph 29, setting out certain portions of the City of Atlanta Electrical Code, was subject to the attack made that there was no allegation that such code had been incorporated in any city ordinance.

3. This opinion is based on the following allegations, which we consider sufficient to state a cause of action: '8. The relationship of innkeeper and guest existed between the defendant and plaintiff herein. [Not demurred to.] * * * 21. That the premises in which plaintiff stayed were, as to the housekeeping and maintenance thereof, including such accessories as window fans, under the control of the defendant by and through his agents and employees. [Not demurred to.] * * * 29. That the housekeeping of the units of said court was negligently maintained in that cloth curtains, not fireproofed in any manner, were allowed to hang alongside of and against the motor case of window fans; that said fans were heavily coated with accumulated grease and dust, this constituting a fire hazard should said fans fail to properly function or the accumulated grease thereon become ignited. * * * 29-d. That during the absence from said premises by...