Moore v. Sears

• Decision Date: 14 February 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20759.,20759.
• Citation: 157 S.E. 106,42 Ga.App. 658
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: MOORE. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK &. CO.

42 Ga.App. 658

157 S.E. 106

MOORE.

v.SEARS, ROEBUCK &. CO.

No. 20759.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Feb. 14, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

In the instant suit for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she tripped and fell over a small chain suspended across and just above the floor in a corridor of the defendant's building through which customers were expected to pass in entering and leaving the building, it cannot be held as a matter of law that the allegations of fact failed to show negligence on the part of the defendant, or that the petition disclosed such negligence or want of care on the part of the plaintiff as to bar a recovery. The petition set forth a cause of action, and the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

Error from City Court of Atlanta; Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Cortez Moore against Sears, Roebuck & Co. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Mrs. Cortez Moore brought suit against Sears, Roebuck & Co. to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff when she tripped and fell over a small chain in a corridor in the defendant's store in Atlanta. The court sustained a general demurrrer to the petition, and the plaintiff excepted.

The petition contained the following allegations:

"On or about November 18, 1929, at about 9 o'clock a. m., petitioner went to defendant's store for the purpose of making some purchases. She was to meet her husband at said store and they were to shop together in making the purchases of the goods they desired.

"When plaintiff entered defendant's store, she did not find her husband where she had expected to meet him, and started out in search of him. As she was passing through the doors going out, she was tripped by a small chain that was hanging across the entrance of the door, a short distance above the floor, and fell, sustaining injuries that will hereinafter be more fully set out.

"At the entrance to said store, and where plaintiff fell and was injured, there is an outer and inner set of doors between which is a small corridor, or space, about six feet by twenty feet. Between said doors and on each side of said corridor there are steam radiators with valves extending about twelve inches above the floor. Immediately between said doors a small chain had been stretched across said corridor, and it was this chain over which petitioner tripped. Said chain had been attached to the valves of each of the radiators, but one end had been loosened and was lying on the floor of said corridor, thus leaving the other end of said chain about two inches above the floor, at the place where petitioner was tripped and fell.

"Petitioner shows that the defendant herein and its agents and employees used said chain to exclude customers and others from its store at times when its doors were not locked and at hours its said store was not open for business, but at the time herein referred to its store was open for business to its customers.

"Petitioner did not see said chain until her foot had been caught by it and she had fallen, and by the exercise of ordinary care she could not have seen it. The inside doorway through which she was going had a screen door and a glass panel door. The screen door was closed, which prevented petitioner from seeing anything on the floor.

"When petitioner's foot struck said chain it wrapped about and entangled her ankle, and she fell forward several feet against the facing of the outer door, " suffering described injuries.

"The entrance to defendant's store, where plaintiff fell and was injured, has three sets of doors, and each set is composed of four doors, which are side by side, with only the door framing between them. The first four, or the outer doors, are glass paneled doors, and open outward from the building or entrance, and lead into a small corridor, approximately twenty feet wide by six feet in depth. At the time referred to in plaintiff's petition said doors were wide open, thus permitting the daylight, from the outside of said building, to enter said corridor, which caused a somber or shaded appearance therein.

"Between said corridor and the inside of said store there are two sets of doors, having four doors to each set. Four of said doors are glass paneled and open within said corridor and were open at the time of the injury complained of. At the inner end of said corridor and opening immediately into the store of defendant, and about six inches from the glass paneled doors which [were] open at the time of plaintiff's injury. On each side ofsaid corridor and between said doors are steam radiators about five feet in length. Attached to said radiators are radiator valves extending about one foot above the floor. Said valves are very near said inner doors, being about one foot from the frame to which said doors are fastened. The chain referred to in plaintiff's petition was attached to one of these radiator valves.

"When entering said store plaintiff entered on her right though the door of the first set and passed straight and directly through said corridor and the other set of doors into said store. The chain referred to had been loosened from the radiator valve on the side of the corridor where she entered and passed through and had been thrown back from the entrance through which she entered said store. When making her exit from said store through said corridor plaintiff passed out on the opposite side of said corridor from which she entered. It was necessary for her to open one of said screen doors in passing out. Said chain was fastened to the radiator valve at that side of the corridor and was hanging diagonally towards the floor of said corridor and immediately and directly in front of the door through which she was passing, and a part of it was lying on said floor to the left of the door through which she was passing. Said chain was about twice the size of a large watch chain, and it had a rusty brownish color, like that of the covering of the floor of said corridor upon which it was lying. The screen door through which plaintiff...