Haverty Furniture Co v. Jewell, (No. 18380.)
| Decision Date | 13 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 18380.) |
| Parties | HAVERTY FURNITURE CO. v. JEWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; E. D. Thomas, Judge.
Action by P. R. Jewell against the Haverty Furniture Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Underwood, Haas & Gambrell, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Dillon, Calhoun & Dillon and C. M. Austin, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
STEPHENS, J. [1] 1. Evidence that the plaintiff's foot slipped upon linoleum upon a floor and that the linoleum at that particularplace had the appearance of having been gone over with an oil mop and of being at the time covered with a substance resembling oil, that the linoleum elsewhere had no such appearance as has just been described, but that the floor surrounding the strip of linoleum had the appearance of having been freshly oiled, authorizes an inference that the plaintiff's foot slipped as a result of a slick condition of the linoleum caused from a slick substance resembling oil upon the linoleum.
2. Evidence that the floor upon which the plaintiff claimed to have slipped was in the store of the defendant, and within the defendant's custody and control, that the passageway over the floor at this point was not well lighted and somewhat dark, that the plaintiff, before she slipped, did not know of the slippery condition of the linoleum, although she had looked at it before she stepped upon it, that she had been in the store to make a payment upon her account with the defendant, and that when she slipped and fell she was leaving the store by a passageway which led to the street, authorizes the inference that the plaintiff at the time of the injury was an invited guest upon the premises of the defendant, and that she, without negligence on her part, was injured as a result of a slippery condition of the linoleum due to the defendant's negligence and to no fault on her part.
3. Where the court charged the jury that if the defendant used the most approved methods of cleaning and washing the linoleum there could be no recovery by the plaintiff as a result of her having slipped upon the linoleum, "unless it is shown that the oil or grease was left or allowed to accumulate on the floor by the defendant, " this latter expression in the charge is not an unequivocal instruction that there could be a recovery against the defendant if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v. Jackson Infirmary
...163 So. 447 173 Miss. 832 DANIEL v. JACKSON INFIRMARY No. 31810Supreme Court of MississippiSeptember 30, 1935 . ...105; Benesch & Sons v. Ferkler, 139 A. 557;. Haverty Furniture Co. v. Jewell, 38 Ga.App. 395, 144. S.E. 46; ......
-
Starr v. Emory University
...lighting, to be sufficient to state a cause of action. Bryant v. S. H. Kress & Co., 76 Ga.App. 530(1, 2), 46 S.E.2d 600; Haverty Furniture Co. v. Jewell, 38 Ga.App. 395(1, 2), 144 S.E. 46; Caroway v. City of Atlanta, 85 Ga.App. 792, 798(2), 70 S.E.2d 126, and cases therein cited. While ever......
-
Haverty Furniture Co. v. Jewell
...144 S.E. 46 38 Ga.App. 395 HAVERTY FURNITURE CO. v. JEWELL. No. 18380.Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second DivisionJuly 13, 1928 . . Syllabus by Editorial Staff. . . In. ......