J. B. Pound Hotel Co v. Vaissiere

• Citation: 54 Ga.App. 162,187 S.E. 279
• Decision Date: 16 July 1936
• Docket Number: No. 25188.,25188.
• Parties: J. B. POUND HOTEL CO. v. VAISSIERE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

54 Ga.App. 162

187 S.E. 279

J. B. POUND HOTEL CO.

v.VAISSIERE.

No. 25188.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

July 16, 1936.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

STEPHENS, J., dissenting.

Error from City Court of Savannah; Alex R. MacDonell, Judge.

Suit by G. H. Vaissiere against the J. B. Pound Hotel Company. To review a judgment overruling a general demurrer to the petition, defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Hitch, Denmark & Lovett, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.

Gazan, Walsh & Bernstein, of Savannah, for defendant in error.Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

PER CURIAM.

In a suit by a guest against a hotel keeper in which it was alleged that, for the purpose of a banquet to be held in the dining room of the hotel, defendant had erected an improvised platform in the dining room about one foot from the floor and which extended to within about two and a half feet from the wall, that plaintiff was one of defendant's guests at the banquet and did not know that the platform did not extend to the wall, that she was seated at a table on this platform with her back towards the edge thereof, and, when the banquet was over, plaintiff and another guest sitting next to her arose about the same time, and, in order to avoid striking her said neighbor, plaintiff "was compelled to step back slightly, " and she stepped upon the edge of the. platform and fell; that plaintiff did not notice that the platform did not extend to the wall as she went upon the same, and had no occasion to make a minute examination thereof, and was not warned or notified that the platform did not extend to the wall; and that defendant was negligent in not providing plaintiff with a reasonably safe place for her use as a guest at the banquet, in failing to extend the platform to the wall, in failing to put a rope or some protection around the edge of the platform, in failing to warn the plaintiff of the danger of stepping on the edge of the platform, and in placing plaintiff's chair so close to the edge of the platform that when she arose she naturally stepped upon the edge of the platform and fell, receiving the injuries sued for, where it does not appear how close plaintiff was seated to the edge of the platform, and does not appear that the dining room was poorly or insufficiently lighted, or that the plaintiff was prevented in any manner or that there was any reason why the plaintiff did not or could not see or know of the gap between the wall and the platform, it is not shown but that the plaintiff could have avoided her injury by the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety. Under the ruling applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Consmittee v. Ward-law, 180 Ga. 148, 178 S.E. 55, reversing the decision of this court in Wardlaw v. Executive Committee, 47 Ga.App. 595, 170 S.E. 830, and the cases cited in the dissenting opinion in the case in 47 Ga.App. the plaintiff did not make a case...