Johnson v. John Deere Plow Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 20233,20233 |
| Citation | 214 Ga. 645,106 S.E.2d 901 |
| Parties | Virginia M. JOHNSON v. JOHN DEERE PLOW COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Since count one of the amended petition failed to state a cause of action for the relief sought, the Court of Appeals did not err in reversing a judgment rendered by the trial judge by which he overruled a general demurrer thereto.
2. Count two of the amended petition states a cause of action for the relief sought. Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment which the trial judge rendered respecting it.
John H. Hudson, W. R. Hudson, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
John D. Jones, Smith, Field, Doremus & Ringel, Palmer H. Ansley, T. J. Long, Ben Weinberg, Jr., Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Mrs Virginia M. Johnson brought an action for damages against the City of Atlanta, Southeastern Fair Association, John Deere Plow Company, and H. Candler Jones trading as Quality Farm Supply Company. Her petition as finally amended contains two counts, each of which in substance alleges: Lakewood Park is an amusement and recreational area owned, managed, and sponsored by the defendant City of Atlanta and operated by it under a contract with the defendant Southeastern Fair Association, a corporation, and it is operated by them for private gain and profit. Prior to October 5, 1955, and pursuant to paragraph 2 of the operating contract between the city and the fairassociation, the latter entered into an agreement with the defendants John Deere Plow Company and H. Candler Jones, trading as Quality Farm Supply Company, by the terms of which they were permitted to display on the park or fair grounds during the 1955 session of the fair certain farming equipment, including a tractor, for inspection by the general public. Such contracting parties selected a place or location on the park or fair grounds suitable for the display and inspection of such farming equipment, and it was placed there by the defendants Plow Company and Jones. On October 5, 1955, the plaintiff, as an invitee of the proprietors of the premises and as one who had paid the admission fee charged by the defendant Southeastern Fair Association, attended the fair, and while sitting on a bench erected by the defendant Fair Association as a resting place for its patrons, the tractor which the defendants Plow Company and Jones had on display ran into the back of the bench on which she was sitting and against, upon, and over her, inflicting on her body several severe and permanent injuries.
All of the defendants, except the City of Atlanta, demurred to each count of the amended petition on both general and special grounds. The trial judge overruled all of the demurrers, and the Court of Appeals on review of the case held that the general demurrers, which the three defendants interposed to each count of the amended petition and which questioned the sufficiency of their allegations to state a cause of action for the relief sought, should have been sustained by the trial judge; but, as to the judgments overruling the special demurrers, it made no ruling. John Deere Plow Co. v. Johnson, 98 Ga.App. 36, 105 S.E.2d 33. The plaintiff, in due time, applied to this court for the writ of certiorari. Her application alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the ruling which the trial judge made as to the sufficiency of each count of the amended petition to state a cause of action for the relief sought; and the application properly assigns error on such judgment of reversal. When her application was examined and considered by this court, we were tentatively of the opinion that the Court of Appeals was correct in its ruling as to the insufficiency of the allegations of count one to state a cause of action, but we were of a different opinion as to the correctness of its ruling respecting count two. Hence, the writ was granted. Since then and since the case was argued in this court, both orally and by written briefs, we have further and more fully considered the whole case and we now hold that count one of the amended petition failed to state a cause of action. Hence, the judgment which the Court of Appeals rendered as to it is not erroneous and is now affirmed without elaboration. In addition to those mentioned above, count two of the amended petition contains allegations peculiar only as to it and so far as need be they will be pointed out in the opinion.
1. As to the sufficiency of count two of the amended petition to state a cause of action, the following principles of law, which are well established, should and will be applied by this court to the facts alleged therein; and, from such application, we will determine whether or not its allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for damages. 'To be subject to general demurrer, a petition must be utterly lifeless.' Gunby v. Turner, 194 Ga. 378, 381, 21 S.E.2d 640, 642; Medlock v. Aycock, 16 Ga.App. 813, 86 S.E. 455. 'Where the owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries occasioned by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises * * * safe.' Code (Ann.) § 105-401. 'This section [105-401 of the Code] places upon such owner or occupier of land the duty to exercise ordinary care, for the safety of his invitees, in discovering defects or dangers in the premises or instrumentalities thereon, and imposes a liability for injuries resulting from such defects as a reasonable inspection would disclose.' Fulton Ice & Coal Co. v. Pece, 29 Ga.App. 507(1-a), 116 S.E. 57; Huey v. City of Atlanta, 8 Ga.App. 597, 70 S.E. 71; Atlanta Cotton-Seed Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145(2), 4 S.E. 759; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ga. 600, 58 S.E. 154. While a plaintiff's petition on demurrer thereto will be construed most strongly against him, yet it must be construed as a whole (Thomson Development Co. v. Crutchfield, 161 Ga. 448, 131 S.E. 154); and the final test of the sufficiency of a petition to withstand a general demurrer is whether the defendant can admit all that is alleged therein and at the same time escape liability altogether. Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Martin, 92 Ga. 161, 18 S.E. 364; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Rayford, 115 Ga. 937, 42 S.E. 234; Frazier v. Southern...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. v. Lewis
...the premises but also from other dangers arising from the use of the premises by himself or his licensees." Johnson v. John Deere Plow Co., 214 Ga. 645, 648, 106 S.E.2d 901, 903. He is not an insurer of the safety of persons thereon against all acts of co-invitees and when he has used ordin......
-
Black v. Miller
...affirmed by the Supreme Court. See John Deere Plow Co. v. Johnson, 98 Ga.App. 36, 37(1), 105 S.E.2d 33, aff'd. on this point in 214 Ga. 645, 106 S.E.2d 901. A trailer will roll when set in motion by any number of forces, but in the petition before us the operative cause of the movement is l......
-
Hillinghorst v. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc.
...to inspect and is liable for such injuries caused by defects as would be disclosed by a reasonable inspection. Johnson v. John Deere Plow Co., 214 Ga. 645, 647, 106 S.E.2d 901, and cases cited. Thus, plaintiff's case is for the jury and it was error to sustain the oral motion to dismiss in ......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Watson
...whether the defendant can admit all that is alleged therein and at the same time escape liability altogether.' Johnson v. John Deere Plow Co., 214 Ga. 645, 647, 106 S.E.2d 901. Where a petition has all the requisites to make it good in substance save that it omits to allege some fact essent......