Hood v. McCall Clinic, Inc., 54806
| Decision Date | 15 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 54806,54806,2 |
| Citation | 145 Ga.App. 314,243 S.E.2d 571 |
| Parties | Arnie M. HOOD v. McCALL CLINIC, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Duffey & Sawhill, John E. Sawhill, III, Rome, for appellant.
Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, J. Clinton Sumner, Jr., Raymon H. Cox, Rome, for appellee.
The appellant sued to recover for injuries sustained when she fell in the appellee's parking lot. At the close of the evidence the trial judge directed a verdict for the appellee on the ground that the appellant was a mere licensee and that the evidence failed to prove a wilful and wanton injury. The appellant now appeals the judgment.
The appellant testified that, as she stepped with her left foot, the asphalt collapsed, causing her left leg to double up under her, thereby causing her to fall on her right arm. She also testified that she looked carefully before she stepped and did not notice any defect in the asphalt. The appellant contends that she was a business invitee and that by not inspecting the parking lot for defects the appellee breached its duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises safe. See Code § 105-401.
We do not find it necessary to decide whether the appellant was a business invitee or a licensee as even under the higher standard the evidence wholly fails to prove any liability on the part of the appellee for the appellant's injury. Ordinary diligence does not require an inspection of property in the absence of any reason for the owner to believe that such an inspection is necessary. See Hughes v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 142 Ga.App. 110(1), 235 S.E.2d 619 (1977). Here, the appellant does not show that the appellee had any prior knowledge, either actual or constructive, that the asphalt in the parking lot was crumbling or otherwise defective.
The situation in this case is similar to that in Professional Bldg., Inc. v. Reagen, 129 Ga.App. 183, 199 S.E.2d 266 (1973). There, after a thorough discussion of the law relating to property owners' liability for injuries resulting from alleged defects in the maintenance of business property, the court ruled that the property owner was entitled to a directed verdict. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Famble
...the defendant to have discovered and remedied it. Professional Bldg. v. Reagen, 129 Ga.App. 183, 184, 199 S.E.2d 266; Hood v. McCall Clinic, 145 Ga.App. 314, 243 S.E.2d 571. As stated in Hughes v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 142 Ga.App. 110, 111, 235 S.E.2d 619: "In the absence of any evidence that ......
-
Langston v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC.
...the possible or probable existence of any defects. Roberts v. Wicker, 213 Ga. 352, 355, 99 S.E.2d 84 (1957); Hood v. McCall Clinic, 145 Ga.App. 314, 243 S.E.2d 571 (1978); Smith v. Poteet, supra at 737, 195 S.E.2d 213. Thus, the defendant had no duty to foresee the unforeseeable. "The true ......
-
Towles v. Cox
...of property in the absence of any reason for the owner to believe that such an inspection is necessary. [Cit.]" Hood v. McCall Clinic, 145 Ga.App. 314, 243 S.E.2d 571 (1978). Defendants knew, however, that the area immediately adjacent to their sidewalk was the site of construction work tha......
-
Zellers v. Theater of the Stars, Inc.
...213 Ga. 352, 356, 99 S.E.2d 84 (1957). See also McLaury v. McGregor, 110 Ga.App. 679(2), 139 S.E.2d 444 (1964); Hood v. McCall Clinic, 145 Ga.App. 314, 243 S.E.2d 571 (1978); Hughes v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 142 Ga.App. 110, 235 S.E.2d 619 3. Appellants assert that the trial court erred in gran......