Netherland v. Pacific Emp. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | 2,No. 38154,Nos. 1,38154,s. 1 |
| Citation | 115 S.E.2d 122,101 Ga.App. 837 |
| Parties | W. L. NETHERLAND v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The petition having alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for injury to an invitee, the trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.
This is an action to recover damages as the result of a fall on the defendant's property in which the plaintiff was seriously injured. The defendant interposed a general demurrer to the petition and this was sustained by the trial court. On the exceptions of the plaintiff this matter was brought to this court, and the sole question raised is whether the petition sets forth a cause of action for negligent injuries and thus is not subject to general demurrer.
The following facts in substance were alleged by the plaintiff: The defendant owned and operated a building and adjacent parking lot in the City of Atlanta. The plaintiff was an employee of a tenant in the defendant's building, and this tenant was assigned a parking space in the parking lot which was owned and maintained by the defendant. As an employee of the tenant, the plaintiff was authorized to use the parking space during such time as he was in Atlanta. The plaintiff was a salesman and was 'in town' most of the time and was engaged in work in Atlanta at the time of the injury. The parking lot wherein the injury occurred was of sufficient size to accommodate the parking of about 10 automobiles and was sloping in nature at an angle of about 30~. At the edge of the parking lot near the portion assigned to the plaintiff was a small embankment about 2 or 3 feet in height, the surface of which embankment consisted of loose, loamy, light gray soil of the same color as the surface of the pavement of the parking lot. There were bushes on the bank 4 or 5 feet in height which tended to make the parking area assigned to the plaintiff more difficult to see clearly. At about 9:15 on the morning of the accident in which the injury occurred, the plaintiff arrived and stopped his automobile in the parking area assigned to his employer. On this morning it had been raining and loam from the bank had been washed over the area of the parking space where he parked. This loam held water from the misting rain and created an ice coating over the pavement of the parking space assigned to the plaintiff. The area where the plaintiff fell had a thick loamy coating over the ice, and this condition was difficult to see because of the bushes along the bank of the parking lot. The loam which washed down upon the parking lot was of the same color as the surface of the parking lot and the area was slick when wet even in nonfreezing weather. On the morning of the accident the combination of the water, loam and freezing condition made the area more slippery and treacherous to one attempting to walk over it. This condition causing loose loam on the embankment and the flowage of the water from the bank ontio the pavement, causing the slickness, had been existing for many months. On the morning of the accident the condition of the ice, rain water, and frozen slick loam had been in existence for 3 or 4 hours or more. The plaintiff did not know of the condition of the parking area assigned to him, and such condition was not apparent on casual observation but could have been seen only on pausing and on a close studied inspection with concentrated atention. Nor did the plaintiff have any knowledge of the condition of the parking area which had existed for several months and no knowledge whatever of the fact that the icy condition existed. Immediately after the plaintiff stopped and parked his automobile, he opened the door and stepped out and before he had gone more than one or two steps his right foot slipped out from under him causing him to fall violently to the paved surface of the parking area and causing serious and permanent injuries. The defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of the dangerous condition on the parking lot resulting from frozen water mixed with the slick loam, and several of the employees of the defendant and one or more of the executives of the defendant employed in the building had parked on the parking lot and had walked over the ice-covered parking spaces near the parking space of the plaintiff that morning prior to the time the plaintiff parked his automobile. In spite of the fact the defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of the condition of the parking lot, defendant failed to remove it or to put an abrasive substance on the surface of the ice to render it safe for persons walking over it. The defendant was negligent in operating the paking lot without providing sufficient protection against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pippins v. Breman
...v. First Nat. Bank, 54 Ga.App. 486, 188 S.E. 301; Goldsmith v. Hazelwood, 93 Ga.App. 466, 92 S.E.2d 48; Netherland v. Pacific Employer's Ins. Co., 101 Ga.App. 837, 115 S.E.2d 122." The proof offered in this case failed to establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff could not recover bec......
-
Fincher v. Fox
...the premises in repair to remove temporary accumulations of nature such as rain water, ice and snow. In Netherland v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 101 Ga.App. 837, 841, 115 S.E.2d 122, this court begged the question, holding that there was involved not only ice which had recently formed but ......
-
Burns v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co.
...v. First Nat. Bank, 54 Ga.App. 486, 188 S.E. 301; Goldsmith v. Hazelwood, 93 Ga.App. 466, 92 S.E.2d 48; Netherland v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 101 Ga.App. 837, 115 S.E.2d 122; Wasserman v. Southland Investment Corp., 105 Ga.App. 420, 124 S.E.2d 674, supra; Clayton v. Steve-Cathey, Inc., ......
-
Auerbach v. Padgett
...janitor in attempting to remove ice which had naturally accumulated, has no application here. The case of Netherland v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 101 Ga.App. 837, 115 S.E.2d 122, dealing with accumulations of muddy loam over ice in a parking lot, is also distinguishable. A case in which t......