Reid v. City of Atlanta

• Decision Date: 09 April 1929
• Docket Number: 19452.
• Citation: 147 S.E. 789,39 Ga.App. 519
• Parties: REID v. CITY OF ATLANTA.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

147 S.E. 789

39 Ga.App. 519

REID v. CITY OF ATLANTA.

No. 19452.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

April 9, 1929

Syllabus by the Court.

The petition in this case failed to set out a cause of action and the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer.

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

Action by Harry Reid, by C. L. Reid, as next friend, against the City of Atlanta. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Breen Finch & Padgett, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Jas. L Mayson, Courtland S. Winn, and J. C. Savage, all of Atlanta for defendant in error.

LUKE J.

The only question raised by the record in this case is whether or not the trial judge erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition, which is, in substance, as follows:

"The petition of Harry Reid, by C. L. Reid as next friend, shows to the court:

"1. That the defendant herein named is the city of Atlanta, a municipal corporation," etc.

"2. That the defendant has injured and damaged your petitioner in the sum of $5,000, by reason of the facts hereinafter set out.

"3. That the defendant is the owner of an amusement park, located in Atlanta, state and county aforesaid, commonly known as Piedmont Park.

"4. That the primary object of the said park is pecuniary gain to the defendant in its operation.

"5. That therein the defendant maintains and operates the following sports, devices, and amusements, for a fee, admission, or charge: Golf links, wherein a fee is charged each player per round; tennis courts, wherein each player is charged a fee for each hour played; a riding course, wherein the defendant rents ponies owned by it, for a charge or fee per circuit of the track; a lake, which is reputed to contain fish, and for which a charge is made upon each angler to fish therein. That the defendant rents boats at a charge or fee per hour. That the defendant maintains a swimming pool at one end of the lake, for use of which bathers are charged admission thereto. That adjacent to the said building the defendant maintains a building wherein it leases concessions to venders of wieners, popcorn, peanuts, ice cream, and soda water, bathing suits and other equipment. That upon the golf links there is a building wherein the defendant rents out concessions for the sale of food and drinks, and for the rent and sale of golf accessories.

"6. That there is, contiguous and adjacent to the foregoing enterprises, several acres of land which are purely incidental to the operation of the foregoing amusements and devices for profit.

"7. That the said park is not maintained primarily for the use of the public, intended as a place of resort for pleasure and promotion of health of the public at large, but primarily for the purpose of profit.

"8. That the said amusements, sports, and devices cannot be used or enjoyed by a person except upon payment of the fee demanded by the defendant in each case, and of each person.

"9. That the city of Atlanta has charter authority to operate an amusement park.

"10. That on or about July 18, 1928, at 2:30 p. m., your petitioner had paid the admission charge to enter the swimming pool of the defendant.

"11. That in the said pool the defendant maintains a slide for the use of such persons who are lawfully in the said pool.

"12. That the slide was constructed of sheets of metal, which overlapped, and the said metal had, through continued use, cracked, so that an opening therein was created whenever the weight of a body passed down the slide.

"13. That the slide was defective and of a dangerous nature.

"14. That the defendant had actual and constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition of the said slide for a period of more than two weeks prior to the injury hereinafter complained of.

"15. That at the said time and place plaintiff entered the said slide, which was exposed to the use of bathers, without warning of the dangerous and defective condition of the slide.

"16. That in descending the same petitioner's hand became lodged in the opening in the metal set out above, and the little finger of plaintiff's right hand was jerked, snatched, and violently torn off.

"17. That the loss of the said finger caused plaintiff intense pain," etc.

"18. That the defendant was negligent in in the following particulars:

"(a) In failing to repair the slide.

"(b) In failing to maintain a barrier or to warn plaintiff of the defective condition of the slide.

"19. That plaintiff notified the defendant of his claim for damages more than

...