Harvill v. Swift & Co.
| Decision Date | 07 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 38403,38403,2 |
| Citation | 117 S.E.2d 202,102 Ga.App. 543 |
| Parties | Mrs. A. T. HARVILL v. SWIFT & COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the evidence showed that the plaintiff's husband, who was an invitee of the defendant, was injured as the result of stepping into an open manhole at night on premises exclusively in the possession and control of the defendant, and that the defendant failed to warn him of the condition of the manhole, and where the evidence also showed facts from which a jury could have found that the defendant was negligent in one or more of the ways alleged in the petition and that such negligence proximately contributed to his injuries, and further showed some damage accruing to the plaintiff on account of her loss of consortium resulting from those injuries, it was error for the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant, although the evidence may have shown that the plaintiff's husband's injuries were in some measure contributed to by his own negligence.
Mrs. A. T. Harvill filed suit against Swift & Company, doing business as White Provision Company, in the Superior Court of Fulton County. Her petition sought the recovery of damages on account of the loss of services and consortium of her husband who was injured, as shown by the allegations of the petition, when he stepped into an open manhole maintained on the premises of the defendant. The petition alleged that the plaintiff's husband was employed in driving a cattle truck and delivering cattle to the defendant's plant on Howell Mill Road in Northwest Atlanta; that on the night of September 4, 1956, at approximately 11:30, he arrived at the defendant's plant with a load of cattle and was admitted to the defendant's premises by the night watchman; that he backed his truck up to a loading or unloading dock maintained by the defendant where he was assisted by the defendant's empolyee in unloading; that after this operation was performed the plaintiff's husband stepped from the dock, the floor of which was approximately three feet high, and his right foot went into an open manhole which was maintained some eight or ten inches from the edge of the unloading dock. The petition alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to warn petitioner's husband of the open manhole; in failing to maintain the area in a lighted manner so that the said manhole and pitfall could be seen by the petitioner's husband; in failing to have the said manhole cover on the manhole at the time and place, thereby creating a trap for any person using the loading dock; in failing to place barriers or lights or warning devices around the said manhole, and in failing to exercise due care to protect invitess. The defendant filed general demurrers to the petition. These demurrers were overruled and no exception is taken thereto. Thereafter, the case went to trial and at the conclusion of the evidence the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict which the trial court granted, and the exception here is to that judgment.
Ward, Brooks & Williams, Cullen M. Ward, Wilson Brooks, Osgood O. Williams, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Sam F. Lowe, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Upon the trial of the case, the plaintiff's evidence tended to prove substantially the facts alleged in the petition, that is, that her husband arrived at the plant of the defendant at about 11:30 on the night in question; that he was admitted to the premises by a night watchman and was assisted in unloading cattle by a colored employee of the defendant, these two persons being the only employees of the defendant who were shown to have been seen by the plaintiff's husband on the occasion of this visit; that after he had completed unloading the cattle, he stepped from the loading dock at the right rear of his truck, preparatory to reentering his truck and returning to South Georgia for the purpose of picking up another load of cattle which he intended to bring in later that night or early the next morning, and that immediately upon stepping from the dock, his right foot and leg entered the manhole and he fell with his right foot and leg in the manhole and his left foot and leg out and was rendered temporarily unconscious as the result of the fall, but later regained consciousness and extricated himself from the nanhole and was found walking around in a dazed condition some twenty minutes after the unloading operation by the employee who had assisted in unloading the cattle, and this witness testified that the plaintiff's husband's right trouser leg was dirty and wet, and his right leg was bleeding. The evidence shows that the premises where occurrence took place were exclusively in the possession and control of the defendant corporation, and that it had been the custom on previous occasions for the defendant's employees to remove the manhole cover in question in order to facilitate the drainage of water from the area adjacent to the loading dock.
The evidence would have authorized a jury to find that the plaintiff's husband had sustained severe and painful injuries as the result of this occurrence, and that the services rendered to the plaintiff by her husband had been diminished as the result of these injuries and that the plaintiff had also lost some or all of her rights of consortium.
There being no exception to the judgment of the trial court overruling the general demurrers, it is established as the law of the case that the petition as originally drawn set forth a cause of action. Kelly v. Strouse & Bros., 116 Ga. 872(7), 43 S.E. 280; Bridges v. Brackett, 208 Ga. 774(1), 69 S.E.2d 745; Copeland v. McElroy, 49 Ga.App. 490, 491(1), 176 S.E. 67, and Davidson v. Consolidated Quarries Corp., 99 Ga.App. 359, 383, 108 S.E.2d 495. Applying the same rule of law to the judgment of the trial court allowing the amendments prior to the submission of the case to the jury, such amendments, if material, became a part of the petition and must be considered by this court in determining whether the proof corresponded with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hillinghorst v. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc.
...Atlanta Paper Co. v. Sigmon, 82 Ga.App. 730(2), 62 S.E.2d 363; Frazier v. Davis, 94 Ga.App. 173(2), 94 S.E.2d 51; Harvill v. Swift & Co., 102 Ga.App. 543, 547, 117 S.E.2d 202; Kelley v. Black, 203 Ga. 589, 593, 47 S.E.2d 802; Belch v. Sprayberry, 97 Ga.App. 47, 51, 101 S.E.2d 870, cited by ......
-
McDougal v. Johnson
...490, 491(1), 176 S.E. 67; Davidson v. Consolidated Quarries Corp., 99 Ga.App. 359, 383, 108 S.E.2d 495; and Harvill v. Swift & Co., 102 Ga.App. 543, 545, 117 S.E.2d 202; Mason v. Hall, 72 Ga.App.867, 873, 35 S.E.2d 478; Reeves v. Madray, 101 Ga.App. 300, 302, 113 S.E.2d The case of Close et......
-
Mathis-Akins Concrete Block Co., Inc. v. Tucker
...is not meritorious. Although the evidence was conflicting, it was ample on plaintiff's part to show a pitfall. See Harvill v. Swift & Co., 102 Ga.App. 543, 546, 117 S.E.2d 202; Rogers v. Bragg, 117 Ga.App. 295, 160 S.E.2d 4. There is no merit in the contention that the trial judge charged i......
-
Abney v. London Iron & Metal Co., Inc.
...v. Johnson, 127 Ga.App. 244, 245(2), 193 S.E.2d 228; Chatham v. Larkins, 134 Ga.App. 856, 858, 216 S.E.2d 677; Harvill v. Swift & Co., 102 Ga.App. 543, 117 S.E.2d 202. (d) It has been held that a fireman who enters the premises of another to extinguish a fire, his entry on the premises is b......