Grant v. Allen

• Decision Date: 11 December 1913
• Citation: 80 S.E. 279,141 Ga. 106
• Parties: GRANT v. ALLEN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

80 S.E. 279

141 Ga. 106

GRANT v. ALLEN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 11, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

The owner of an office building provided with an elevator for carrying the tenants and their employés and patrons to and from the various floors is under a duty in the operation of the elevator to exercise extraordinary diligence on behalf of himself and his agents to protect the lives and persons of those entitled to use it.

(a) Under the facts alleged in the petition it is a question for the jury to determine whether the injury complained of resulted from the defendant's failure to exercise the degree of diligence required by law.

A plaintiff who sues to recover damages for a personal injury may embrace in his petition two or more separate counts stating the manner in which he was injured, so as to meet any anticipated variations in the proof; but he is not required to state his case in separate counts where the manner of his injury is described as a series of consecutive acts by the defendant, terminating in the injury, all of which are alleged to be negligent.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

The stopping of an office building elevator carriage at a point where its floor and that of the building are practically on a level, with the door of the elevator shaft open, is an implied invitation to passengers to enter and leave the carriage.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.

Action by Lucy L. Allen against Mrs. W. D. Grant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Slaton & Phillips, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Napier Wright & Cox, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

EVANS, P.J. (after stating the facts as above).

The owner of an office building, equipped with an elevator which is operated for conveying his tenants and their employés and patrons to and from the various floors, is not a common carrier in the sense that he is bound to serve all the public, yet his duty as to protecting passengers in the elevator is the same as that chargeable to carriers of passengers by other means. 6 Cyc. 596; 1 Hutchinson on Carriers, § 100. This duty requires him to exercise extraordinary diligence on behalf of himself and his agents to protect the lives and persons of his passengers. Civil Code, § 2714. Does the petition allege a case of injury resulting from a failure to exercise extraordinary care by the elevator boy? The plaintiff entered the elevator when it was at rest. While it was still stationary, with the floor of the elevator practically on a level with that of the floor of the building, and the door of the elevator shaft open, she attempted to leave it to return to the office of her employer, which she had just quitted. Just as she was in the door, and had placed one foot in the hallway of the building the operator suddenly started the car...