Moore v. Kroger Co.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 34414,No. 2,34414,2 |
| Citation | 74 S.E.2d 481,87 Ga.App. 581 |
| Parties | MOORE v. KROGER CO |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where, as here, it appears that the plaintiff's injuries were sustained by her fall when she tripped against a large pushcart in a self-service grocery store--the plaintiff not expecting to find her way obstructed, and accordingly walking down the aisle of the store with her vision obscured by a large sack of groceries which she was adjusting in her arms--the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries was her failure to exercise ordinary care for her own safety in looking ahead in the direction in which she was walking. Accordingly, a general demurrer to the petition was properly sustained.
Mrs. Nora Moore filed suit against The Kroger Company in the Superior Court of Fulton County for injuries received by her resulting from a fall on the premises of the defendant, which she had entered as an invitee. Count one of the petition alleges: that the defendant operates a self-service store; that customers of the store push about metal carts approximately three to four feet high and 18 inches wide while gathering up groceries, then bring such carts of groceries to a checking stand and, when the carts are emptied, an employee of the store removes them to their position near the "In" door, thus clearing the "Out" door for traffic; and that the plaintiff, after checking her purchases at the cash register, had to go through an aisle between the back of the checking stands and a metal safe of approximately two by three feet to get to the "Out" door, and had to make an abrupt left-hand turn through the aisle in so doing. The petition continues: Count two of the petition alleges that the push cart in question belonged to another customer rather than to the defendant. In both counts the alleged negligence is failure of the defendant's employees to keep the aisle clear for people using it, and in not discovering and removing the cart before the plaintiff's fall.
A general demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the exception is to this ruling.
A. Paul Cadenhead and Nall & Sterne, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
T. Elton Drake and John M. Williams, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
... ... 697] conclusions therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp., 187 Ga.App. 594, 595-596, 370 S.E.2d 843. On motions for summary judgment, the court cannot resolve the facts or reconcile ... As the trial court correctly pointed out, this is not a valid reason. Harper v. Kroger Co., 212 Ga.App. 570, 571, 443 S.E.2d 7, citing Redding v. Sinclair Refining Co., 105 Ga.App. 375, 378-379, 124 S.E.2d 688. Moreover, even if there ... ...
-
Slaughter v. Slaughter
...of defendant's store); McMullan v. Kroger Co., 84 Ga.App. 195, 65 S.E.2d 420 (concrete bar in defendant's parking lot); Moore v. Kroger Co., 87 Ga.App. 581, 74 S.E.2d 481 (push-cart in aisle of grocvery store); Rich's, Inc. v. South, 91 Ga.App. 487, 85 S.E.2d 774 (boards in aisle of defenda......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Layne
...Lane Drug Stores v. Story, 72 Ga.App. 886, 35 S.E.2d 472; Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 70 Ga.App. 390, 28 S.E.2d 322; Moore v. Kroger Co., 87 Ga.App. 581, 74 S.E.2d 481. A careful reading of the facts in those cases compared with the facts in the instant case and the principle of law invo......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Chandler
...fact that the plaintiff merely failed to look will not relieve him from the responsibility for his misadventure." Moore v. Kroger Co., 87 Ga.App. 581, 583, 74 S.E.2d 481, 482; Miller v. Bart, 90 Ga.App. 755, 758, 84 S.E.2d 127; Colonial Stores v. Owens, 107 Ga.App. 436, 437, 130 S.E.2d This......