Lake v. Cameron, 28740.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1941
• Docket Number: No. 28740.,28740.
• Citation: 13 S.E.2d 856
• Parties: LAKE et al. v. CAMERON.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

13 S.E.2d 856

LAKE et al.

v.CAMERON.

No. 28740.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

March 17, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence authorized the finding that the plaintiff was injured as the result of the defendants' negligence, and did not demand a finding that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the injuries.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Virlyn B. Moore, Judge.

Suit by Florence Cameron against Virgil H. Lake, H. E. Stanford and J. W. Stanford to recover for personal injuries which allegedly resulted from the negligence of the defendants in the maintenance of certain premises, on which the plaintiff came as the defendants' customer and invitee. J. W. Stanford was stricken as a defendant. To review an adverse judgment, Virgil H. Lake and H. E. Stanford bring error.

Judgment affirmed.

John H. Hudson and C. R. Wheeless, both of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Geo. & John L. Westmoreland, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

STEPHENS, Presiding Judge.

Mrs. Florence Cameron instituted suit for personal injuries against Virgil H. Lake, H. E. Stanford, and J. W. Stanford, which injuries she alleged, resulted from the negligence of the defendants in the maintenance of certain premises, owned, occupied, and controlled by them, and upon which premises the plaintiff came as their customer and invitee. J. W. Stanford was stricken as a defendant. It appeared from the allegations of the petition that the defendants were chiropractors, and maintained in the City of Atlanta a building where their patients received treatment from them; that the plaintiff was a patient of the defendants, and on the occasion inquestion she came to such building for the purpose of attending a class of patients to which she belonged, which class received from the defendants periodic treatments; that while on the premises of the defendants for the above purpose, the plaintiff fell into the basement, that the defendants had failed in the duty owed to her of keeping safe the premises and approaches thereto, and that by reason thereof, without fault on her part, she fell and was hurt; that the defendants were negligent in maintaining upon these premises an unguarded doorway, with no warning sign thereon, leading into the basement; that there was no light at such place that would enable her to ascertain the danger; that the defendants, in the exercise of the duty imposed upon them should have had a light at this place; that when she opened this door, and there was no light there and the hallway was dark, she groped for a light switch, being under the impression that she was on the threshold of the dressing room, which was adjacent to the door leading into the basement, and that while so doing she fell down these steps into the basement. It appeared from the allegations of the petition that, although the nurse or female attendant of the defendants who was on duty at the premises when the plaintiff arrived for the purpose of taking treatment, knew of the doorway leading into the basement and that it was adjacent to the dressing-room doorway, she permitted the plaintiff, knowing that she was seeking the dressing room, to open this door. It also appeared that the patients of the defendants who attended this class had to prepare for the class treatment by undressing and putting on smocks, that the defendants furnished each patient with an individual smock, and that on the occasion in question the plaintiff had requested the smock to be used by her from the female attendant or nurse of the defendants who was on duty, and when the smock was given to the plaintiff she proceeded toward the dressing room to change from her clothes into the smock. The defendants denied liability. They alleged that the plaintiff fell as the result of her failure to exercise due care for her own safety. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $637.50. The defendants moved for a new trial on the general grounds only. This motion was overruled and the defendants excepted.

The plaintiff testified in part as follows: "As I went into the entrance way on July

3, 1935 they had a young lady attendant there at the front door, they always had a young lady attendant there at the front door. I had a discussion with her. She had a desk and 'phone back of her; she has this cabinet with smocks for the different patients. A 'smock' is the loose garment that the patient wore when taking their treatments, each patient had an individual smock to wear. I would say this cabinet had about twenty compartments in it, or something like that. There were rows of drawers there with names on them. On this particular occasion on July 3rd they had designated one of those containers for my smock and had my name on the drawer containing it. Prior to July 3rd, 1935, I had been there several times. As to where I went the other times that I had come in there before, well, the first treatment I took on the right in Dr. Standford's office, I believe; and then the next treatment the girl at the desk showed me the dressing room, which was on the left, that was a different room, and then I went to this room at the left several times'. The room on the left was just through this very narrow hall--narrow hallway. You passed this one door to the basement, and then this door to the dressing room, which was just about five feet from the attendant. The first door was practically right next to the door that went into the dressing room. On July 3, 1935, I had no idea in the world where the first door led to; it was never called to my attention; I had never noticed it before. I had not particularly noticed that there was a door that I passed to go to the dressing room. There were doors on all sides there. On this particular occasion that I went in July 3, 1935, I got there a little after five o'clock; I would say along about probably 5:30 maybe. It was still daylight outside. There are doors entering those offices that go off to the right from this hallway. They were solid wood doors. I didn't see any light in that hallway. I asked the attendant for my smock at the desk; and I was a little early, somewhat early for the next class, and I asked her if it would be all right to go ahead and undress. She said it would be all right. She gave me a smock. When I started back to go to what I thought was the dressing room, I stopped there in the narrow hallway, and I stood before this door, and it was a little dark, and I asked her again, 'Is it all right to go in?' and she said, 'Yes, it is all right' Well, I opened this door, and it was--dark in this room, and I thoughtprobably the lights hadn't been turned on yet, because it was early for the next class, so I was trying to find the light switch, and I--well, on the...