Raven v. S. S. Kresge Co.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,52977,Nos. 52976,s. 52976,1 |
| Citation | 232 S.E.2d 122,140 Ga.App. 799 |
| Parties | Leah D. RAVEN v. S. S. KRESGE COMPANY. G. H. RAVEN v. S. S. KRESGE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
McCurdy & Candler, George H. Carley, John Perry Cripe, Decatur, for appellants.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Samuel P. Pierce, Jr., Warner S. Currie, Atlanta, for appellee.
The appellants sued the appellee for damages suffered due to an injury to appellant Mrs. Raven occurring in the appellee's store. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the appellee.
While in the appellee's place of business, Mrs. Raven was standing near the check- out counter perusing a razor blade display. The display consisted of small packages hung on approximately six-inch rods, which were uniformly arranged on a pegboard surface, as is common in most large grocery and discount stores. When she reached down to select some blades from one of the lower rods, Mrs. Raven gouged her eye on one of the higher rods. In Mrs. Raven's deposition, she testified that the rod in question was not askew or out of line with the other rods on the display. No one pushed her, the rack did not move, and the lighting was fine. She knew where the rods were, and there was nothing to prevent her from seeing them. Nevertheless, the appellants contend that the appellee was negligent in the construction, maintenance, and placement of the display rack.
Our review of the record reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact. Code Ann. § 81A-156(c) (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238). We can find no actionable negligence. See Lane v. Maxwell Bros. & Asbill, Inc., 136 Ga.App. 712, 222 S.E.2d 184 (1975); Simmons v. Classic City Beverages, Inc., 136 Ga.App. 150, 220 S.E.2d 734 (1975); Rich's, Inc. v. Waters, 129 Ga.App. 305, 199 S.E.2d 623 (1973); Zayre of Georgia, Inc. v. Epps, 127 Ga.App. 128, 192 S.E.2d 561 (1972); Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 70 Ga.App. 390, 28 S.E.2d 322 (1943). Therefore, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tanner v. Ayer, 57941
...Ga.App. 123, 192 S.E.2d 561 (1972); Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 70 Ga.App. 390, 28 S.E.2d 322 (1943)." Raven v. S. S. Kresge Co., 140 Ga.App. 799, 800, 232 S.E.2d 122, 123 (1976). Therefore, we hold that as to defendant Peachtree, the trial court was correct in granting summary Judgment ......
-
Forde v. Citizens & Southern Georgia Corp., 71996
...to discover any defect or dangers. Herschel McDaniel Funeral Home v. Hines, 124 Ga.App. 47, 183 S.E.2d 7. See also Raven v. S.S. Kresge Co., 140 Ga.App. 799, 232 S.E.2d 122. Ms. Forde argues that while she ordinarily might have been required to exercise more diligence, yet because this was ......
-
Coleman v. Clark
...find as a matter of law that no actionable negligence exists on the basis of the facts of a particular case. Raven v. S. S. Kresge Co., 140 Ga.App. 799, 800, 232 S.E.2d 122 (1976); Tanner v. Ayer, 150 Ga.App. 709, 258 S.E.2d 545 (1979); Rhodes v. B. C. Moore & Sons, Inc., 153 Ga.App. 106, 2......
-
Rhodes v. B. C. Moore & Sons, Inc.
...182 S.E.2d 164, 165 (1971). Here, it clearly appears from the record that there is no actionable negligence. Raven v. S. S. Kresge Co., 140 Ga.App. 799, 800, 232 S.E.2d 122 (1976); Tanner v. Ayers, 150 Ga.App. 709, 258 S.E.2d 545 (1979). 2. Appellant, however, argues that appellee has in ef......