Kinnebrew v. Ocean S. S. Co. Of Savannah

• Decision Date: 07 October 1933
• Docket Number: No. 23234.,23234.
• Citation: 47 Ga.App. 704,171 S.E. 385
• Parties: KINNEBREW. v. OCEAN S. S. CO. OF SAVANNAH.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

47 Ga.App. 704

171 S.E. 385

KINNEBREW.

v.OCEAN S. S. CO. OF SAVANNAH.

No. 23234.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

Oct. 7, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The plaintiff, under the allegations of her petition, was, at best, a licensee, and not an invitee. There was no mutuality of interest alleged as between the plaintiff and the defendant sufficient to create between them the relation of invitor and invitee. A permission does not constitute an invitation.

2. The owner of premises owes to a licensee no duty of keeping the condition of the premises up to any given standard of safety, except that they must not contain pitfalls or mantraps or things of that character.

3. Defects not discoverable by casual or ordinary inspection, where injury is caused therefrom to a licensee, do not give rise to a cause of action against the owner of the premises.

4. Applying the above principles to this case, the court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's petition, on general demurrer.

Error from City Court of Savannah; Davis Freeman, Judge.

Petition by Mrs. C. C. Kinnebrew against the Ocean Steamship Company of Savannah. Petition was dismissed on demurrer, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Minor Dempsey and Ulmer & Dowell, all of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.

H. Wiley Johnson and Julian F. Corish, both of Savannah, for defendant in error.

GUERRY, Judge.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant maintained ship terminals and wharves, in Savannah, for use of passengers and shippers of freight; that the general public was expressly and impliedly invited to use these terminals and wharves; that at 2 o'clock the petitioner entered upon a wharf belonging to the defendant, for the purpose of visiting a named person aboard a ship docked at this wharf; that petitioner stepped upon a plank on said wharf, which gave way and caused the injury complained of; that after the injury the plaintiff discovered that the place through which her foot had broken was rotten and in an unsafe condition, and had been so for months before the accident; and that defendant knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of the rotten and un-safe condition. The acts alleged to have been negligent were: (1) Failing to repair and keep in safe condition said wharf; (2) failing to make reasonable and timely examination and inspection to discover the unsafe condition; (3) failing to warn petitioner of the unsafe condition of said wharf. The petition further alleged that petitioner was without fault and in the exercise of all reasonable care and caution when the injury occurred. Plaintiff amended her petition by adding thereto the following: "That the only way to reach said ship from land was over said wharf, and that an agent, servant, and employee of said defendant, to-wit a watchman employed by the defendant at said time and place, the name of whom is unknown to your petitioner, but well known to said defendant, pointed out said ship and directed her over said wharf to said ship, that said wharf was provided by the said defendant for the use, among other customary purposes, of persons going to and from ships docked at said wharf; that said wharf was...