Feldman v. Whipkey's Drug Shop
| Decision Date | 19 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 45144,45144,3 |
| Parties | Ida S. FELDMAN v. WHIPKEY'S DRUG SHOP et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Aaron Kravitch, John W. Hendrix, Savannah, for appellant.
Falligant, Doremus, Karsman & Maurice, Robert E. Falligant, Jr., Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler, Savannah, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case results from the sustaining of motions to dismiss by each defendant in a suit for damages against the defendants' alleged negligent installation of a boothettetype telephone on the side walk of the other defendant's drugstore on the outer wall of the building, for the convenience of the public. The petition alleged it was advantageous to have the pay telephone installed for the use and benefit of the customers and the general public, and on a named date, another party drove an automobile into the plaintiff as she stood at the boothette telephone making a call, causing her grievous injuries. The basis of her suit against these defendants is that they knew, or reasonably should have known, that such occurrences could take place, in that they have, in fact, occurred previously, and that the defendants were negligent in failing to install proper protective devices to protect the general public as invitees upon the property. It is also noted that the petition shows that plaintiff and her hubsband executed a covenant not to sue in favor of the party driving the automobile and an insurance company, upon the receipt of the sum of $22,000. However, she alleges further that she has incurred additional medical expenses since that time, and that the defendants are liable to her, not only by commission of acts of negligence, but further by omissions in not providing proper safeguards on or about the premises for her safety, and that the said acts were the proximate and direct cause of the injuries which she sustained. Held:
1. Since detailed pleadings are no longer required, the only question for decision here is whether or not, under the facts alleged, the plaintiff is entitled to any relief against the defendants. Code Ann. §§ 81A-108(a); 81A-112; (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 619, 622; 1967 pp. 226, 230, 231); Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga.App. 236(1), 160 S.E.2d 260; Ghitter v. Edge, 118 Ga.App. 750(1), 165 S.E.2d 598. While a general allegation of defendants' negligence is all that is required, yet the plaintiff here set out in detail averments of fact which made it unnecessary for detailed discovery by the defendants to determine if these defendants were guilty of negligence in any manner in the resulting injuries to the plaintiff by reason of an automobile suddenly jumping over the curb and sidewalk and striking the petitioner and crushing her body against the steel pipe and brick wall of the drugstore. She specifically alleged that the telephone contained no safety device for protecting the user, and that there was no guardrail or other protective structure between the sidewalk and the parking apron to protect pedestrians or persons standing in front of said structure or using the public pay telephone from automobiles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Langley
...85 (1971); Chatmon v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., 133 Ga.App. 326, 133 Ga.App. 326, 211 S.E.2d 2 (1974); Feldman v. Whipkey's Drug Shop, 121 Ga.App. 580, 174 S.E.2d 474 , cert. denied, 400 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 251, 27 L.Ed.2d 251 (1970); Denisewich v. Pappas, 97 R.I. 432, 198 A.2d 144 (R.I.......
-
Dalmo Sales of Wheaton, Inc. v. Steinberg
...S.E.2d 700 (1975), and Chatman v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., 133 Ga.App. 326, 211 S.E.2d 2 (1974), and Compare Feldman v. Whipkey's Drug Shop, 121 Ga.App. 580, 174 S.E.2d 474 (1970), and Eckerd-Walton, Inc. v. Adams, 126 Ga.App. 210, 190 S.E.2d 490 All of these cases, of course, proceede......
-
Slaughter v. Slaughter
...on the premises. The owner or occupier of land is not an insurer of the safety of those who may go thereon. Feldman v. Whipkey's Drug Shop, 121 Ga.App. 580(3), 174 S.E.2d 474. There is no liability from ownership alone, Golf Club Co. v. Rothstein, 97 Ga.App. 128, 133, 102 S.E.2d 654, aff'd ......
-
Hill v. Hospital Authority of Clarke County
...of error is without merit as the trial judge charged correctly on the principle of foreseeability. See Feldman v. Whipkey's Drug Shop, 121 Ga.App. 580, 581(2), 174 S.E.2d 474 and citations III. MOTIONS (1) The sixth enumeration avers error in the denial of the plaintiff's motion for new tri......