Dickey v. J. C. Penney Co., 46515
| Decision Date | 15 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 46515,46515,3 |
| Parties | Lula I. DICKEY v. J. C. PENNEY COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Calhoun & Sims, W. David Sims, Savannah, for appellant.
Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Edwin D. Robb, Jr., Frank W. Seiler, Savannah, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Plaintiff in a personal injury action appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the defendant.
Plaintiff alleged that when placing her foot upon the first step of the flight leading to the basement of one of defendant's stores, it came into contact with some oily, slick or slippery substance which caused her to slip and fall. Following defendant's motion for summary judgment she added to her complaint an allegation that the step was improperly constructed as it is a continuation of the main floor, it is made from slick marble, and that the only abrasive protection is at the leading edge (and not back where people customarily place their feet).
Defendant submitted affidavit from two of its employees who examined the top step immediately following the incident and who stated that they made a thorough investigation and found the spot in question clean and free from any foreign substance. They also both stated that plaintiff said, upon being helped up from her fall, that she had experienced a dizzy spell. Plaintiff said on deposition that she stepped on something slick, like ice, but that she had not seen anything there before she stepped off and had no idea what it might have been. Her husband was with her in the store and his deposition was also taken and submitted on motion. He testified that he also had seen nothing on the top step; that he was walking a step or two ahead of plaintiff when she came falling down past him; that later when she was in the hospital he noticed a stain on the sole of her shoe which he then placed in a plastic bag (the record does not show whether the stain was ever identified); that he returned to defendant's store soon after to examine the step but could see nothing wrong with it; and that he tried to find out from the manager whether the store carried insurance.
Plaintiff contends that a material issue of fact is presented, i.e., whether there was a slippery foreign substance on the stop. Plaintiff further contends that defendant in no way pierced the amended pleadings concerning improper construction.
Except for the 'stain on the shoe,' the facts of this case closely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Mock
...the premises. This is not the rule. See Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 123 Ga.App. 233, 236, 180 S.E.2d 364 and cit.; Dickey v. J. C. Penney Co., 124 Ga.App. 852, 186 S.E.2d 356. The trial judge erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary Judgment reversed. BELL, C.J., and HALL and EBER......
-
Williams v. EMRO Marketing Co., A97A0957
...... no proof that a puddle of pesticide was the source of the slickness on which she fell); Dickey v. J.C. Penney Co., 124 Ga.App. 852, 853, 186 S.E.2d 356 (1971) (plaintiff offered no proof of a ......
-
Zayre of Georgia, Inc. v. Epps, 47418
...of storage when, as in any large and busy retail store, it is likely they will be filled again shortly. See also Dickey v. J. C. Penney, 124 Ga.App. 852, 186 S.E.2d 356. Judgment PANNELL and QUILLIAN, JJ., concur. ...
-
Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center Inc., 55519
...fall. CPA § 50(a) (Code Ann. § 81A-150(a)); Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 123 Ga.App. 233, 180 S.E.2d 364 (1971); Dickey v. J. C. Penney Co., 124 Ga.App. 852, 186 S.E.2d 356 (1971). 2. The trial court properly directed a verdict against Gordon on her claim that the Center, through its employee......