Roberts v. Wicker
| Decision Date | 16 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 19678,19678 |
| Citation | 99 S.E.2d 84,213 Ga. 352 |
| Parties | Faye P. ROBERTS v. Roy WICKER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
On the trial of an action for personal injuries, against a landlord and his tenant, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, an invitee, while on the premises of the defendants, the court properly granted a nonsuit where, admitting all of the facts proved and all reasonable deductions therefrom, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Robert Duncan and Dudley Cook, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, C. Baxter Jones, T. J. Long, Smith, Field, Doremus & Ringel, and Ben Weinberg, Jr., Atlanta, J. G. Roberts and Scott Edwards, Jr., Marietta, for defendant in error.
Mrs. Faye P. Roberts, in her suit against Dr. L. A. Ray and Dr. Roy Wicker, sought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her when she fell while leaving the waiting room of the office of Wicker, whom she had visited as a patient, Wicker being an occupier of the premises owned by the defendant Ray. She alleged that, as she walked through the front door upon leaving the building and office of Dr. Wicker, the 'toe of her right shoe caught in the threshold strip, and she was tripped and thrown forward to the concrete walkway immediately outside of said door', and that she received a break in her right leg above the knee. The threshold strip was described as an aluminum metal strip fastened to the floor immediately underneath the door and extending the entire width of the door. The metal threshold strip was described more particularly as Both of the defendants were charged: with the negligent maintenance of this doorway 'with a hollowed out place underneath the weather stripping'; with the failure to have the top metal strip and the bottom metal strip of contrasting colors; and with the failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises in a safe condition and not warning the plaintiff of its dangerous condition. It was further alleged that the described dangerous condition as to the threshold was known to both defendants.
On the trial of the case, the plaintiff testified that, as she was walking out of the door, she did not look down at the floor and did not know that the metal strip was under the door; that she did not know what part of the threshold strip her foot struck, but that it made her lose her balance, causing her to fall; that she did not notice the threshold strip; and that the way that it looked had no connection with her falling. A Mrs. Moulder, who was a witness to the accident, stated that she heard a slight click as if the plaintiff had hung her foot on a piece of metal. There was evidence that both of the defendants knew that the netal strip was under the door, and that it was the type that was commonly used in other buildings; that one would not necessarily observe the ridge on the metal strip or the groove in it by walking through the door, but one would have to get down on the floor and take a level view of the strip to discern its condition. There was no evidence that anyone else had previously tripped on this metal strip.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the court, upon motion, granted a nonsuit as to both de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crosby v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co., 42091
...58 Ga.App. 160 (2a, b), 198 S.E. 111; Restatement, Torts, § 342; Prosser, Torts, (3rd Ed.) Ch. 11, § 60. Accord, Roberts v. Wicker, 213 Ga. 352, 355, 99 S.E. 84; McLaury v. McGregor, 110 Ga.App. 679(2), 139 S.E.2d Defendant's franchise, and the city ordinance. Do the provisions in the franc......
-
Kahn v. Graper
...and occupiers of land for their invitees.' Pettit v. Stiles Hotel Co., 97 Ga.App. 137, 102 S.E.2d 693, supra. And see Roberts v. Wicker, 213 Ga. 352, 99 S.E.2d 84. If the steps were broken or obstructed, that was a statical condition which should have been perfectly obvious to any who used ......
-
Smith v. Poteet
...Shockley v. Zayre of Atlanta, Inc., 118 Ga.App. 672, 165 S.E.2d 179. The facts sub judice are analogous to those in Roberts v. Wicker, 213 Ga. 352, 99 S.E.2d 84 where a judgment of nonsuit was granted. There plaintiff tripped on a threshold strip, commonly used in other buildings. 'One woul......
-
Amear v. Hall
...160 Ga.App. 555, 287 S.E.2d 619, supra; see also Stewart v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 115 Ga. 624, 628, 41 S.E. 981; Roberts v. Wicker, 213 Ga. 352, 355, 99 S.E.2d 84. However, here the defendant made the visual inspection of the beams the day before the incident occurred, and there had been a......