Etheridge Motors, Inc. v. Haynie

Decision Date12 May 1961
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 38866,38866,2
Citation120 S.E.2d 317,103 Ga.App. 676
PartiesETHERIDGE MOTORS, INC. v. T. P. HAYNIE
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Matter of inducement which does not constitute the gist of the cause of action but contributes to an understanding of it is not surplusage, but it need not be pleaded with as great particularity as those facts upon which the plaintiff relies for recovery.

2. An allegation is not subject to special demurrer as a conclusion which avers (a) that the defendant had knowledge of certain facts, or (b) that the plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, unless other facts pleaded negative such statement.

3. One who accompanies a friend to a place of business for the purpose of inspecting personal property left by the customer to be repaired, and who is invited along with the customer to go to the place where such property is located, is an invitee and not a mere licensee, and the proprietor owes him the duty of exercising ordinary care in the maintenance of the premises to avoid injuring him.

4. Factitious and unreasonable demands by special demurrer are not encouraged, and this is particularly true where the facts called for are within the knowledge of the defendant.

5. Where it is alleged that the plaintiff was invited to descend a staircase located in a building operated by the defendant corporation as a place for selling and repairing automobiles; that the plaintiff went down the stairs to the ground floor area where the paint and repair shop was located; that the room was dimly lighted and the concrete floor appeared smooth and dry, but was in reality covered with a film of mud and water coming from automobiles washed in the area or from an earth wall next to the staircase; that the floor sloped toward a drain but the slope was not apparent under the conditions existing; that the floor was slick and dangerous when wet, which was unknown to the plaintiff, and that defendant was negligent in maintaining the floor in an unsafe manner and in failing to warn the plaintiff of its condition, the defendant having actual knowledge of his presence, the petition sets out a cause of action for injuries received by the plaintiff when he slipped and fell.

Tarpley Haynie filed an action for damages in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County against Etheridge Motors, Inc., alleging in substance that the defendant owned an automobile agency in connection with which it operated repair and painting facilities for its customers and solicited patronage of purchasers and persons desiring to have automobiles serviced, repaired and painted. The physical construction of the building is as follows: it faces north on Moreno Street, its second floor being level with that street and containing show room, office, parts department and service and repair shop. The lower floor faces south and is below ground level and partially unexcavated on the north side; its entrance is by a driveway to Harris Street on the east. The floors are connected by a single stairway debouching on a concrete floor near the earth bank which forms the north wall of the lower floor; the floor has a one-inch slope toward a drain located 7 feet from the stairway; this floor is used for storage, body work, and the paint shop. The smooth finished concrete floor is slick when wet with water or mud from washing cars or from rain, and the portion near the stairway is also made slick when wet by mud seeping out from the earth bank next to the stairway. The plaintiff 'went to the premises with Clifford King to get King's automobile which was being painted by the defendant, and upon the invitation and direction of an agent and employee of defendant, whose name is not now known to petitioner but is well known to the defendant, petitioner and Clifford King went into the parts department and down the stairway, as aforesaid, for the purpose of inspecting the paint job done by defendant on Clifford King's car. Petitioner was specifically invited by the employee aforesaid to go upon the premises and to see the work done by the defendant.' At the foot of the steps the plaintiff slipped on the concrete floor, which was wet and muddy, and fell, sustaining described physical injuries. The petition further alleges that he was not familiar with the unsafe and dangerous condition; that the only windows were to the south and west and were covered with dirt; that the sun was in the west casting shadows and little light came onto the floor from outside; visibility was poor, the smooth finish and slope of the floor was not detectable, the floor gave the appearance, under those conditions, of being dry, level, and safe to walk upon and the plaintiff was unaware of the hazard until he fell. Negligence is alleged in failing to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe, in directing the plaintiff to use the area to reach the paint shop when the defendant knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of its slick and slippery condition; in inviting the plaintiff to walk on a slick, slippery and dangerous area without warning him that it was a dangerous trap, camouflaged and intrinsically unsafe; that it knew of the presence of the mud and water in the area and permitted it to remain there; in failing to maintain adequate illumination; in failing to maintain the floor in a safe condition; in failing to keep the premises and approaches safe and give the plaintiff any warning thereof.

General and special demurrers to the petition were overruled and this judgment is assigned as error.

Merritt & Pruitt, Glyndon C. Pruitt, Buford, for plaintiff in error.

Lokey & Bowden, Hamilton Lokey, Glenn Frick, Atlanta, Joseph E. Cheeley, Buford, for defendant in error.

TOWNSEND, Presiding Judge.

1. Paragraphs 5 through 13 of the petition describe the building with particularity for the purpose of showing that, as to customers entering on the main floor from the Moreno Street entrance, the route to the paint shop in the basement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Georgia, A., S. & C. Ry. Co. v. Rutherford
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 1961
    ...or the surrounding conditions and circumstances where the cause of action arose are allegations of inducement. Etheridge Motors v. Haynie, 103 Ga.App. 676, 120 S.E.2d 317. Such allegations do not require the particularity in pleading as do other essential averments setting out the essence o......
  • Wright v. Lail, 39136
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 1962
    ...cause of action arose. Ga. &c. Ry. Co. v. Rutherford, 104 Ga.App. 41, 121 S.E.2d 159, and cases cited therein; Etheridge Motors, Inc. v. Haynie, 103 Ga.App. 676, 120 S.E.2d 317. Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the special demurrer are not meritorious, and the court erred in sustaining 3. The d......
  • Wood v. Hub Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1964
    ...of an ultimate fact is not demurrable as a conclusion unless the petition affirmatively contradicts it. Etheridge Motors, Inc. v. Haynie, 103 Ga.App. 676, 679, 120 S.E.2d 317. 'A conclusion in a pleading is not subject to special demurrer if the inference stated therein may be legitimately ......
  • Garrison v. Rich's
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 1980
    ...Such a charge is a correct statement of the law and was adjusted to the evidence introduced by appellant. Etheridge Motors v. Haynie, 103 Ga.App. 676, 681, 120 S.E.2d 317 (1961); Watson v. McCrory Stores, 97 Ga.App. 516, 519, 103 S.E.2d 648 (1958). 7. Finally, appellant contends that the ve......
  • 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