McCarthy v. Hiers

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SUTTON
• Citation: McCarthy v. Hiers, 81 Ga.App. 365, 59 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. App. 1950)
• Decision Date: 07 April 1950
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 32815,32815,1
• Parties: McCARTHY v. HIERS et al

Page 22

59 S.E.2d 22

81 Ga.App. 365

McCARTHY v. HIERS et al.

No. 32815.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

April 7, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

Under the facts alleged in the present case the defendants were not required to make an inspection of the roof before allowing the plaintiff to use the same as a walkway to the smokestack, and the petition fails to show any actionable negligence on the part of the defendants. It was not error for the trial judge to sustain the defendants' demurrer and dismiss the petition.

Wilson & Wilson, Waycross, for plaintiff in error.

Larry E. Pedrick, Waycross, Wilson G. Pedrick, Waycross, Joe Schreiber; J. Mack Barnes, Waycross, for defendants in error.

SUTTON, Chief Judge.

This action was brought in Ware Superior Court by Clinton McCarthy against Jack Hiers, Cecil Hiers, and George Thigpen, partners trading as Hiers Planing Mill Company, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when the roof of the defendants' building collapsed.

The material facts alleged in the petition are as follows: The defendants occupy a building at 721 Albany Avenue in Waycross, Georgia, of open construction with a galvanized roof supported by steel girders. There is a boiler room in the building with a large boiler in it, and extending therefrom through an opening in the roof is a large smokestack. On July 16, 1949, the defendants had contracted with P. R. Holtzclaw to paint this smokestack, and the plaintiff and others in the employ of Holtzclaw began this work. The only way to get to the smokestack was to use a ladder to get to the roof, and then walk across the roof to the smokestack, and the plaintiff was on the roof with a bucket of paint approaching the smokestack when the roof collapsed and he fell through to the concrete floor of the boiler room, receiving severe injuries. The roof had every appearance to the plaintiff of being safe to walk upon.

It is alleged that the plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care, and that the defendant knew or in the exercise of ordinary care could have ascertained that the roof was unsafe, insecure, and in a dangerous condition for the use to which it was being put. In addition the plaintiff makes the following allegations of negligence: '(a) Because defendants * * * failed in their duty to maintain the premises of their planing mill in a safe and secure condition. (b) Because defendants * * * failed to inspect said roof and premises to see that same were in a state of good and safe repair before allowing said petitioner to go thereupon for the purposes aforestated. (c) Because defendants * * * allowed petitioner to go upon said roof for the purpose of painting said smokestack at their special instance and request without informing petitioner that same was unsafe to stand upon or walk upon and that same would not support his weight. (d) Because defendants * * * failed to maintain in a safe condition, or to inform petitioner that same was not in a safe condition, although they knew that said roof was the only means whereby petitioner could reach said smokestack in order to paint same.'

The trial judge sustained a general demurrer to the petition and dismissed the same, and the plaintiff excepted.

The question presented for determination, as stated by counsel for both parties in their briefs, is whether the plaintiff's petition alleged facts which placed upon the defendants the duty of inspecting the roof in the exercise of ordinary care before allowing the plaintiff...