Godard v. Peavy
| Decision Date | 19 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 15100.) |
| Citation | 32 Ga.App. 121,122 S.E. 634 |
| Parties | GODARD. v. PEAVY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; E. D. Thomas, Judge.
Action by Mrs. M. D. Peavy against Mrs. S. E. Godard. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
The plaintiff as a tenant sued the defendant as landlord on account of injuries received from being thrown from certain back steps, one of which it is alleged slipped, turned, and threw the plaintiff to the ground. The petition alleges that the defects causing the fall were latent, and that the plaintiff did not know of their existence, and was under no duty to inspect the premises. The averments in reference to the defects are as follows:
"That the stringer under said back doorsteps was not of standard thickness, was only 1 1/8 inches in thickness, when it should have been 2 inches, and was too thin and too light to hold the nails driven through the tread, or doorstep proper, to hold it in place on this particular occasion, when petitioner stepped on the second step from the top, " and that, "in addition to being too thin and light, said stringer, which was covered with a tread and rise, was decayed to such an extent that it would not hold nails, which fact could have been discovered only by inspection."
The allegations with reference to the plaintiff's express or implied knowledge of the defects are as follows:
That plaintiff was "injured because of latent defects in said steps, which were unknown to petitioner, but were known to defendant, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have been known to defendant, " and that, "when defendant rented said premises for a residence, she necessarily warranted that the back doorsteps and all other parts thereof were reasonably safe for that purpose, and was under the legal duty of inspecting the same to ascertain if there were latent defects therein."
The paragraph with reference to alleged notice to the landlord is as follows:
"That petitioner and other tenants in said residence had requested the defendant to repair the roof of the back porch over said steps, which was leaking badly and was needing repair, or rather another roof."
There is nothing in the petition to indicate that the house or the steps were built by the defendant landlord, or under her authority or direction. The defendant demurred to the petition, on the grounds that it failed to set out a cause of action; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Crownover
...535, 536, 151 S.E.2d 925 (1966). See also Bixby v. Sinclair Refining Co., 74 Ga.App. 626, 40 S.E.2d 677 (1946); Godard v. Peavy, 32 Ga.App. 121(1), 122 S.E. 634 (1924); McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga.App. 106(1), 107 S.E. 563 (1921). Even if this court were to conclude that legislation would not ......
-
Gibson v. Littlejohn, 29498.
...latter, or as devolving upon the landlord any duty of inspection. McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga.App. 106 (3), 107 S.E. 563." Godard v. Peavy, 32 Ga.App. 121 (2), 122 S.E. 634. The headnote in Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Bilton, 65 Ga.App. 249, 15 S.E.2d 803 reads: "A notice given by a tenant......
-
Gibson v. Littlejohn
... ... devolving upon the landlord any duty of inspection. McGee v ... Hardacre, 27 Ga.App. 106 (3), 107 S.E. 563." Godard ... v. Peavy, 32 Ga.App. 121 (2), 122 S.E. 634. The headnote ... in Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Bilton, 65 ... Ga.App. 249, 15 S.E.2d 803 ... ...
- Godard v. Peavy