Lam Amusement Co. v. Waddell
| Decision Date | 30 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 39223,39223,1 |
| Citation | 105 Ga.App. 1,123 S.E.2d 310 |
| Parties | LAM AMUSEMENT COMPANY v. H. T. WADDELL |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A petition alleging that the defendant, when there was snow and ice on the streets, placed on the tile and terrazzo floor of its theatre entrance, for patrons to walk on, a rug 2 to 3 feet wide and several feet long which would slip and slide when walked on, and which when plaintiff stepped on it did slip and cause plaintiff to fall and be injured, states a cause of action.
2, 3. A pleader may not be required by special demurrer to make additional allegations, the omission of which will not handicap the adverse party in understanding the nature of or in defending the claim against him.
4. In a negligence action, when it is alleged that the defendant created a condition on its premises dangerous to invitees, it is not necessary to allege other facts to show actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.
The plaintiff (defendant in error) sued the defendant (plaintiff in error) for personal injuries he received when he fell on entering a theatre owned and operated by the defendant, alleging as follows: In the early part of March prior to March 10, while there was ice and snow on the streets following a storm, the defendant placed 'immediately behind its box office a fabric rug or runner some 24 to 30 inches wide and several feet long, upon the tile and terrazzo floor * * * for the purpose of customers and patrons * * * walking thereon * * *' On March 10 the plaintiff, when entering the theatre to see a picture, stepped on the rug, 'the same slipped, glided, and slid in a backward manner toward the box office, throwing plaintiff off balance and causing him to fall' and be injured. The defendant (a) was negligent per se 'in failing to exercise ordinary care in keeping [its] premises and approaches safe, in violation of Section 105-401 of the Georgia Code Annotated'; (b) was negligent 'in failing to provide a rug or runner upon which customers and patrons * * * could safely walk in approaching the entrance'; (c) 'in providing a rug * * * which was unsafe, in that it would slip and slide when stepped upon'; (d) 'in failing to provide a rug or runner with a rubberized base, or in failing to attach said rug or runner to the floor in such a manner that it would not slip or slide when walked upon.' (e) The defendant in the exercise of ordinary care could and should have discovered the condition of the rug and taken the necessary means of render it safe for patrons. The defendant filed general and special demurrers to the petition, which the trial court overruled. The defendant assigns error.
Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, Oscar M. Smith, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
E. J. Clower, Rome, for defendant in error.
1. In search of authority that the present petition does or does not set forth a cause of action, we have examined many cases in Georgia and in other jurisdictions. Every case examined, including Gibbons v Harris Amusement Co., 109 Pa.Super. 484, 167 A. 250, cited by the defendant, has facts different in some way from those alleged here. This court must reach its decision, therefore, upon precedents containing similar facts and upon general principles respecting the rights and duties of the parties.
The petition alleges and contends that the defendant placed on the tile and terrazzo floor in the entrance of its premises, for the purpose of being walked over by its patrons, while there was ice and snow on the streets, a rug, unattached to the floor, that would slip and slide when walked upon, and that was thus unsafe for the purpose intended; and that the defendant thereby failed in its duty of ordinary case to make its premises safe for its invitees.
The question is whether a proprietor of a business, in installing a floor covering over which it invites its patrons to walk, has the duty to ascertain that the floor covering is of such character and is installed in such a way that it will, within reasonable anticipation under all the circumstances, be secure and safe for the use of invitees exercising reasonable care for their own safety. We think that a person entering, in a normally observant manner, a theatre or other business where there is a rug, that presents no obvious hazard, over an area where patrons would normally walk, may reasonably assume that the rug is safe to walk over and will not slip and slide. In using the rug as intended by the proprietor, the patron does not have the opportunity to discover defects that are not obvious. It follows, therefore, that ordinary care requires a proprietor, who has the opportunity when installing a floor covering for patrons to walk over, to ascertain that it is of such materials and is installed in such manner as to be safe for use under the conditions contemplated.
Here the petition alleges the existence of a condition created by the defendant on its premises which a jury would be authorized to find would cause a prudent person reasonably to anticipate would be dangerous to invitees. This is not such a plain and indisputable case that the court must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Hub Motor Co.
...of a petition by asking, can the defendant admit all that is alleged (well-pleaded) and escape liability? Lam Amusement Co. v. Waddell, 105 Ga.App. 1, 4, 123 S.E.2d 310; Belk-Gallant Co. v. Cordell, 107 Ga.App. 785, 787, 131 S.E.2d Admittedly the petition may present a formidable problem of......
-
Studdard v. Evans
...failure to allege other facts more particularly will handicap the defendants in defending the claim against them. Lam Amusement Co. v. Waddell, 105 Ga.App. 1, 4, 123 S.E.2d 310. The special demurrer on the ground that the facts alleged would not authorize the recovery of punitive damages is......
-
Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Dressel, 40612
...v. Courts, 90 Ga.App. 472, 476, 83 S.E.2d 288; Carpenter v. Forshee, 103 Ga.App. 758, 770, 120 S.E.2d 786; Lam Amusement Co. v. Waddell, 105 Ga.App. 1, 4, 123 S.E.2d 310; Grier v. Donner, 108 Ga.App. 546, 547, 134 S.E.2d 46; Studdard v. Evans, 108 Ga.App. 819, 825, 135 S.E.2d Today our plea......
-
Cox v. K-Mart Enterprises of Georgia, Inc.
...of soft drinks). Where a dangerous condition is created by the storekeeper, notice of the condition is presumed. Lam Amusement Co. v. Waddell, 105 Ga.App. 1(4), 123 S.E.2d 310. In Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fredericks, 106 Ga.App. 732, 128 S.E.2d 542 supra, plaintiff was injured when a stac......