Ford v. S. A. Lynch Corp.

Citation54 S.E.2d 320,79 Ga.App. 481
Decision Date23 June 1949
Docket NumberNo. 32498.,32498.
PartiesFORD. v. S. A. LYNCH CORPORATION.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Syllabus by the Court.

From the allegations of the petition in this case it appears that the plaintiff's injuries were the result of his own failure to exercise ordinary care in walking upon the marble floor of the hotel lobby while it was covered with soapy water, at the time and place in question, and in such circumstances the question of negligence is properly decided by the court as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing the action.

FELTON and TOWNSEND, JJ, dissenting.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Frank A. Hooper, Judge.

Action by T. H. Ford against S. A. Lynch Corporation, doing business as the Atlantan Hotel, for personal injuries. To review a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

T. H. Ford filed his suit against S. A. Lynch Corporation, d/b/a the Atlantan Hotel, in Fulton Superior Court, for $10,000 damages, on account of injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on the floor of the lobby of defendant's hotel where he was a guest.

The allegations of the petition, as amended, pertinent to the issues here involved, are as follows: "5. About 3:30 o'clock a. m. on the morning of June 21, 1948, plaintiff entered the Luckie Street entrance to said hotel of defendant as its guest and invitee, and walked down the steps leading from said entrance to the lobby of said hotel, and was approaching the desk in said hotel. 6. That the passageway in said lobby on the first floor of said hotel leading to said desk is of marble or stone and has a smooth and highly polished surface. 7. When plaintiff descended the steps leading from the Luckie Street entrance to the lobby of said hotel, the surface of that portion of the lobby floor tangent and adjacent to the bottom step of said steps was covered with water and was in a slick and slippery condition and plaintiff, in stepping from the bottom step to the lobby floor, fell upon said floor and steps with great force and violence. 8. Before plaintiff slipped and fell, plaintiff did not see and did not know that said floor was covered with water and was slippery and unsafe. 8a. Plaintiff at all times referred to herein exercised ordinary care and diligence for his own safety and protection using due care and circumspection in walking into said hotel. 9. Defendant knew that said floor was covered with water and that it was in a slippery and unsafe condition at said time and place. 21. Said defendant corporation was negligent in the following particulars to wit: (a) In causing and permitting water and grease to accumulate and stand on said floor in said passageway insaid hotel in violation of the requirements of ordinary care and diligence, (b) In knowingly maintaining said premises in an unsafe and dangerous condition, in violation of the requirements of ordinary care and diligence, (c) In failing to mop and remove said water and grease from said passageway after causing same to accumulate thereupon as required in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence under the circumstances. (d) In failing to warn plaintiff of the peril and hazard of walking on said slick, slippery and dangerous passageway as required in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence under the circumstances, (e) In permitting said slick, slippery and unsafe condition of the passageway to remain and continue after acquiring knowledge thereof, notwithstanding it had caused grease and water to accumulate thereupon, said passageway being frequented by hundreds of people daily, as required in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence under the circumstances, (f) In not keeping the premises and approaches safe by the exercise of ordinary care, in violation of Code, § 105-401, the same being negligence as a matter of law. (g) In failing to provide a safe way of ingress and egress to petitioner who was a guest and invitee lawfully upon the premises of said defendant at said time and place as heretofore alleged, (h) In failing to give plaintiff any warning or notice of said slippery condition or slippery surface of said floor as heretofore described and in holding same out to plaintiff as a reasonably safe way by which to enter said premises. 23. Plaintiff shows that he had resided at said hotel for a period of two years preceding the date of his injuries as set out herein, and was a resident of said hotel at the time of said injuries. 24. Plaintiff shows that the water standing on the floor of said lobby was placed there by an employee of the defendant, whose name is known to defendant but unknown to plaintiff. 25. Plaintiff shows that at all other times, when defendant mopped and wet said floor, defendant placed a warning on said wet areas, or blocked said wet areas off by chairs and other means to prevent persons from walking on said wet areas. 26. Plaintiff shows that when he walked down said steps, that he looked down steps and down on said lobby floor, but did not observe the water standing thereon because said water was translucent and transparent on said marble floor and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 juillet 1964
    ...It does not necessarily follow that water on a floor is as patently slippery and dangerous as ice. The case of Ford v. S. A. Lynch Corp., 79 Ga.App. 481, 54 S.E.2d 320 is, in our opinion, erroneously decided and unsound. This case was decided by a full bench of six judges, two judges dissen......
  • Chotas v. J. P. Allen & Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 2 mai 1966
    ...31 Ga.App. 402, 120 S.E. 683; Banks v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, 79 Ga.App. 313, 53 S.E.2d 595; Ford v. S. A. Lynch Corp., 79 Ga.App. 481, 54 S.E.2d 320; Hill v. Davison-Paxon Co., 80 Ga.App. 840, 57 S.E.2d 680; Mattox v. Atlanta Enterprises, 91 Ga.App. 847, 87 S.E.2d 432; Bonne......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Layne
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 7 juillet 1953
    ...Authority of City of Atlanta, 79 Ga.App. 313, 53 S.E.2d 595; McMullan v. Kroger Co., 84 Ga.App. 195, 65 S.E.2d 420; Ford v. S. A. Lynch Corp., 79 Ga.App. 481, 54 S.E.2d 320; Hill v. Davison-Paxon Co., 80 Ga.App. 840, 57 S.E.2d 680; National Bellas-Hess Company v. Patrick, 49 Ga.App. 280, 17......
  • Rockmart Bank v. Hall
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 septembre 1966
    ...denying a recovery to the plaintiff. See for example, Lebby v. Attlanta Realty Corp., 25 Ga.App. 369, 103 S.E. 433; Ford v. S. A. Lynch Corp., 79 Ga.App. 481, 54 S.E.2d 320; Hill v. Davison-Paxon Co., 80 Ga.App. 840, 57 S.E.2d 680; and the most recent case of Gibson v. Consolidated Credit C......
  • 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