Mortgage Commission Servicing Corp. v. Brock
| Decision Date | 29 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27671. |
| Parties | MORTGAGE COMMISSION SERVICING CORPORATION v. BROCK. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John M. Slaton and James J. Slaton, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Geo & John L. Westmoreland, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The question presented for decision is whether or not the trial court erred in overruling the general demurrer of the defendant, Mortgage Commission Servicing Corporation, to a petition filed by Mrs. H. E. Reynolds Brock to recover damages because of injuries sustained by her on the premises of the defendant. The petition as amended alleged in substance that on August 1, 1937, the defendant owned an apartment house known as 790 Myrtle Street in the City of Atlanta, and that through its agent, Draper-Owens Company, it invited the plaintiff, along with the general public, to visit said apartment house for the purpose of inspection with a view to renting an apartment therein, the basis of the alleged invitation being an advertisement which the agent inserted in the Atlanta Journal, a newspaper, on Sunday morning, August 1, 1937. The advertisement, a copy of which was attached to the petition, was headed "Apartments-- Unfurnished," and listed fifteen apartments, among which was the following: "790 Myrtle St., Apt. 8, 5 rooms, 2 bedrooms, gas stove, electric refrigerator (current furnished) and garage 50.00." At the bottom of the advertisement appeared the name of the agent, its address 521 Grant Building, and its telephone number, Wa 9511. It was further alleged that the plaintiff, having seen the advertisement, did, on Sunday evening of the same date, about 7:45 o'clock, go to the apartment property to inspect the apartment No. 8 which was advertised; that she was not familiar with the premises; that there are two sets of stairs in said building and she proceeded up the front stairs to reach the second floor on which apartment No 8 was located; that when she reached the second floor there was no light burning in the hallway; that it was not quite dark, being between twilight and dark, and she was unable to see the numbers on the doors of the apartments and her companion struck a match to see the numbers on the doors; that discovering that she was in front of apartment No. 7, the plaintiff proceeded across the hallway to locate apartment No. 8 and discovered that there was a note pinned on the door of said apartment, but that it was so dark in the hallway she could not read the note and started to proceed towards a small window which opened at the end of the hallway; that from the place where she stood at the doorway on the side where the bell and the handle of the knob of said apartment were located she took one step towards the said window and immediately began to fall down the rear steps leading from the second story of the building to the first floor thereof; that she did not know that the said steps were there, and could not and did not see the same on account of the insufficient light in the building and there was no electric light or other artificial light at or near the place where she fell; that the said step-off, so close to the doorway or entrance of said apartment, constituted a dangerous trap, and that the defendant knew that the steps which descended so rapidly and started so closely to the said entrance constituted a dangerous trap; that the said steps consisted of approximately eight or ten steps, leading directly from the second floor landing, and then curved and turned and continued with six or eight other steps to the first floor landing; that there was no railing or other object on said steps upon which she could put her hand or catch hold of to prevent or stop her from falling down the steps, and that the defendant did not keep and maintain any railing, gate, or other obstruction to prevent the plaintiff from falling down said steps because of their unsafe and close proximity to the entrance to said apartment No. 8; that she was injured and damaged in certain described particulars, and that the defendant was negligent (a) in having the said stairway constructed in such a way that it came in such close proximity to the doorway or entrance to said apartment, which plaintiff was invited to inspect, and (b) in maintaining a dangerous trap on said premises without warning plaintiff of its dangerous condition.
It is contended by the plaintiff in error that there was no invitation; that if there was an invitation it could apply only within reasonable hours; that the invitation, if any, was that the plaintiff call on the agent at 521 Grant Building or telephone the agent at Walnut 9511 if she was interested in renting the apartment; that the agent could not have anticipated that the plaintiff would call in the dark to inspect the premises on Sunday night; that when the plaintiff found that the hall was dark she knew there was no opportunity for inspection and ought to have desisted and have gone back down the same staircase; that the plaintiff found that the door to apartment No. 8 was shut and she could not inspect it, and she ought to have gone back down the steps; that there was no obligation on the defendant to light the premises for inspection of a closed apartment; that the plaintiff was guilty of gross negligence in wandering about in a dark hall at night in a place with which she was unacquainted; that the plaintiff might reasonably have anticipated that there were steps leading down for use of servants for bringing in and sending out heavy articles which could not be brought up the front steps which the tenants were in the habit of using; and that there could be no negligence on the part of an owner in the construction of his building to guard against such acts as the plaintiff by her petition admits she performed.
As stated by counsel for both parties, the present case seems to be without precedent under its facts. It is contended by the plaintiff that she was invited to inspect a certain apartment and sustained injuries through the alleged negligence of the owner, and the basis of the alleged invitation is an advertisement which the owner caused to be inserted in a newspaper issued on the morning of the Sunday on which she was injured at night. It is contended by the defendant that the advertisement could not reasonably be construed as an invitation, and that at the time of her injury the plaintiff was at most a licensee, to whom the duty owed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crosby v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co., 42091
...383; an unlighted stairway which plaintiff did not see and stepped into near the entrance to an apartment, Mortgage Commission Servicing Corp. v. Brock, 60 Ga.App. 695, 4 S.E.2d 669; an unbraced and unsupported automobile tire and rim balanced in a trench near a drain rack at a service stat......
-
Wells v. Polland
...Court found support for its decision in a review of the following cases from other jurisdictions. In Mortgage Commission Servicing Corp. v. Brock, 60 Ga.App. 695, 4 S.E.2d 669 (1939), in response to a newspaper advertisement and without first contacting the realty agency, the plaintiff fell......
-
Woodward v. Newstein
...to the injured plaintiffs support our conclusion that there was no implied invitation here. Thus, in Mortgage Commission Servicing Corp. v. Brock, 60 Ga.App. 695, 4 S.E.2d 669 (1939), the plaintiff responded to a Sunday newspaper advertisement of an apartment for rent. The advertisement gav......
-
Kahn v. Graper
...830; an unlighted stairway near the entrance to an apartment, which plaintiff did not see and stepped into, Mortgage Commission Servicing Corp. v. Brock, 60 Ga.App. 695, 4 S.E.2d 669; a darkened stairway on which the banister did not run all the way to the floor, Leach v. Inman, 63 Ga.App. ......