Hill v. Davison-Paxon Co., DAVISON-PAXON

• Decision Date: 09 February 1950
• Docket Number: DAVISON-PAXON,No. 2,No. 32860,32860,2
• Citation: 57 S.E.2d 680,80 Ga.App. 840
• Parties: HILL v.CO
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 680

57 S.E.2d 680

80 Ga.App. 840

HILL v. DAVISON-PAXON CO.

No. 32860.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Feb. 9, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where in a suit for damages for personal injury allegedly sustained when a customer in a department store fell on a concrete floor near an entranceway, it appearing that it was raining then and had been for a considerable time, which fact was known to the plaintiff, and where the plaintiff states that after her fall she discovered numerous puddles of water on the floor, but fails to allege circumstances sufficient to show that the proprietor had actual knowledge of the presence of the water or implied knowledge that rainwater would render the floor slippery; and where it is not alleged that this condition in fact existed or that it caused her to fall, there appears no lack of care on the part of the defendant which was not shared equally by the plaintiff, and the petition was subject to dismissal on general demurrer.

Mrs. Rebie Hill sued Davison-Paxon Company, a corporation, for damages sustained by her while a customer in the defendant's place of business. A general demurrer was sustained to the petition, pertinent allegations of which were that the plaintiff entered the store to make a purchase; that it was raining at the time and had been most of the time prior thereto; that she fell on a concrete floor in the main aisle near the entrance and after falling discovered that there were numerous puddles of water on the floor; that she had looked at the floor before stepping and had not seen the water; that the floor had numerous bleached and discolored areas and the floor where she fell looked just like other areas; that the puddles of water had been present for several hours and were or in the exercise of ordinary care should have been known to the defendant. The allegations of negligence were that the defendant failed to provide rubber matting or other material on the floor which would have prevented petitioner from falling, as alleged, in said water; that it failed to mop up and remove the water; that it carelessly permitted the water to remain on the floor for a period of several hours, and failed to warn the plaintiff of the presence of said water on the floor although it knew of the same. Petitioner alleged that the said negligence of the defendant was the direct and proximate cause of her injuries.

The assignment of error is to the sustaining of a general demurrer to the petition.

Wm. S. Shelfer, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

T. J. Long, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

TOWNSEND, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).

As between landlord and tenant, master and servant, and owner and customer, one who sustains injuries upon the property of the other, in order to recover, must show that two elements at least exist, viz. fault on the part of the owner, and ignorance and danger on the part of the invitee. See 58 A.L.R. Anno., p. 136; Holman v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 201 Ga. 454, 39 S.E.2d 857.

As to the negligence of the defendant, the mere failure to remove water collecting near the entranceway of a large store because of the constant passing in and out of pedestrians during a period of rain, and the failure to place mats in the aisle at such a place would not be evidence of a lack of reasonable care for the safety of the store's invitees unless the concrete floor at that place had some peculiarity which caused it to become more slippery and dangerous...