Patterson v. Thomas, 43759
| Decision Date | 05 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 43759,43759,2 |
| Citation | 118 Ga.App. 326,163 S.E.2d 331 |
| Parties | Claude PATTERSON v. Mattie THOMAS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The occupier (or owner) of real property owes the same duty of care to a social guest as to a licensee. The occupier is subject to liability to a licensee for injury caused by a condition on the property if the occupier (a) knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee, and should expect the licensee will not realize the danger and (b) fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensee of the condition and risk involved; and (c) the licensee does not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk.
The plaintiff sought damages arising out of personal injuries she sustained when a dinner guest in the defendant's home. The petition alleged that the plaintiff slipped and fell on a 'throw rug' maintained by the defendant in his home; that the defendant knew of the dangerous condition created by placing the rug on a slick floor; and that he failed to warn her of the unsafe condition. The defendant appeals from the judgment overruling its motion for summary judgment.
Mitchell & Mitchell, Coy H. Temples, Dalton, for appellant.
McCamy, Minor, Vining & Phillips, Robert L. Vining, Jr., Dalton, for appellee.
In support of the motion for summary judgment the defendant submitted the plaintiff's testimony by deposition: I The defendant's affidavit stated that to the best of his knowledge no one had ever slipped on the rug; he did not know that it was in any way dangerous and did not consider it to be dangerous when used under normal conditions; he had no idea that it was any threat of harm to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff submitted her affidavit stating that the defendant told her that they had forgot to tell her that the wife had applied a heavy coat of wax to the floors before the plaintiff arrived and they were slippery, and that he knew the rug had been placed on the floor after it had just been heavily waxed.
The plaintiff and the defendant agree that the plaintiff was a social guest in the defendant's home and that her legal status was that of a licensee. See Laurens v. Rush, 116 Ga.App. 65, 156 S.E.2d 482; Stanton v. Grubb, 114 Ga.App. 350(2), 151 S.E.2d 237.
The degree of care owed to a social guest is less than that owed to a business invitee or servant. Code § 105-402. 'An owner owed to a licensee no duty as to the condition of the premises * * * save that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril, or willfully cause him harm.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Famble
...are applicable a child trespasser, certainly a child licensee would be subjected to no stricter standard. Compare Patterson v. Thomas, 118 Ga.App. 326, 328, 163 S.E.2d 331. Thus, as a practical matter, we may test the proof adduced by the five requirements regardless of which category appli......
-
Whitehead v. Green
...shallowness of a pool if, as is uncontradicted here, the fact is apparent and known to the plaintiff.").20 See Patterson v. Thomas, 118 Ga.App. 326, 328, 163 S.E.2d 331 (1968) ("A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to licensees by a condition on the land if, ......
-
Hartley v. Macon Bacon Tune, Inc.
...of the premises[,] save that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril or wilfully cause him harm. Patterson v. Thomas, 118 Ga.App. 326, 327, 163 S.E.2d 331 (1968). An owner or occupier is subject to liability to a licensee for injury caused by a condition on the property if t......
-
Bryant v. Rucker
...in this connection, Code §§ 105-401, 105-402; Wittke v. Horne's Enterprises, 118 Ga.App. 211, 219, 162 S.E.2d 898; Patterson v. Thomas, 118 Ga.App. 326, 163 S.E.2d 331; Stanton v. Grubb, 114 Ga.App. 350, 151 S.E.2d 237; Laurens v. Rush, 116 Ga.App. 65, 156 S.E.2d 482; King v. Central of Geo......