Howell v. Amerson, 42926
Decision Date | 11 July 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 42926,No. 1,42926,1 |
Parties | John L. HOWELL, Sr. v. Emma Kate AMERSON |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jay M. Sawilowsky, Augusta, for appellant.
George B. Rushing, Hull, Towill & Norman, Julian B. Willingham, Augusta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Where plaintiff's husband sought to borrow a used electric drill from the defendant, which he had purchased approximately two months before, on which defendant installed a new plug for connecting to the electric current and informed the husband that he might have it, warning 'It will shock you,' but thereafter in the husband's presence tested it himself on a steel table or drum, receiving no shock from its operation, and then handed it to the husband saying 'It didn't shock me; it's O.K.,' no actionable negligence appears on the basis of a 'failure to warn' of the danger of using the drill. A different result is not required because it appears that defendant knew that the drill had shocked three other people prior to the occasion of the lending, none of whom was injured.
2. We have found no case in the courts of this State, nor has any been called to our attention, dealing with the duty and responsibility of a bailor to the bailee in a gratuitous bailment situation relative to defects which may exist in the subject matter of the bailment.
But we think the rule is well stated in 8 Am.Jur.2d 1043 Bailments, § 148:
The same principle is found in the rule that the owner or host is under no duty to inspect or to warn a guest who is about to ride in his automobile except as to those defects about which he knows and which expose the guest to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martinez v. Rycars Constr. LLC
...he is aware and which might make the subject of the bailment perilous to the bailee or to his servants' " Howe11 v. Amerson, 116 Ga. App. 211, 211, 156 S.E.2d 370, 371 (1967) (quoting 8 Am. Jur. 2d Bailments § 1043 (2011) ) . The rationale underlying this duty is that " "when a person lends......
-
Rigby v. Suburban Rendco, Inc., Civ. A. No. 80-572.
...warn Ernest Renda of any defects of which Suburban had knowledge at the time of transfer of the chattel. See e.g. Howell v. Amerson, 116 Ga.App. 211, 156 S.E.2d 370 (1967); Mudd v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 309 So.2d 297 (La.1975); Hood v. State, 48 Misc.2d 43, 264 N.Y.S.2d 134 (N.Y.Ct.Cl. 1......
-
Prince v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., COCA-COLA
...might make the use of the subject of the loan perilous to the bailee or to his servants.' " (Emphasis supplied.) Howell v. Amerson, 116 Ga.App. 211(2), 156 S.E.2d 370; accord Butler v. Shirah, 154 Ga.App. 111(1), 267 S.E.2d 647. "Thus, it is essential that a bailor use ordinary care to insp......
-
Meriwether County v. Creamer
...benefit of the county to develop civil defense units including the Cove Community civil defense unit. The case of Howell v. Amerson, 116 Ga.App. 211, 212, 156 S.E.2d 370 is not applicable here. However, the court did charge on bailments, including gratuitous 5. The trial court did not err i......