Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42971,No. 3,42971,3 |
| Citation | 116 Ga.App. 391,157 S.E.2d 526 |
| Parties | R. K. SCOTT v. GULF OIL CORPORATION |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Emory Kinard, Atlanta, for appellant.
Greene, Buckley, DeRieux, Moore & Jones, Harry L. Greene, Edgar A. Neely, III, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is a tort action for personal injuries. The plaintiff, Scott, a customer of the defendant, Gulf Oil Corporation, slipped and fell into the glass in the front door of one of the corporation's service stations at approximately 1:20 a.m. on February 26, 1966, sustaining personal injuries. He alleges negligence based on the presence of oil, grease, or some slick substance at the entrance. The trial judge sustained a motion for summary judgment for the corporation, from which Scott appeals. Held:
1. The brief of the plaintiff-appellant shows substantial compliance with Rule 17 of this court and there is no merit in the motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the requirements of this rule. See Rainey v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, 114 Ga.App. 333, 151 S.E.2d 534.
2. 'A primary purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to allow a party to pierce the allegations of the pleadings and show the truth to the court and receive judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact, although an issue may be raised by the pleadings.' Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42(3), 118 S.E.2d 193.
3. We are not here concerned with any issue of proof with respect to the knowledge by the defendant or its agents of the presence of a slippery substance, or the failure to remove same within a reasonable time, for it is clear from the record that the controlling issue, as to a summary judgment for the defendant, is whether the record shows the absence of any slippery substance whatsoever on the floor. The defendant supports this theory by the testimony of the plaintiff, by deposition on January 30, 1967, that he did not know whether he stepped on any grease or oil at the time and never did find out what caused his fall; the affidavit of the station manager who stated that immediately after the fall he removed the glass debris and found no evidence whatsoever of any oil or grease or slippery substance, and the affidavit of another employee of the defendant to the effect that within one minute after the accident he inspected the area and found no evidence of grease or oil, though by a subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Mock
...particular, there is a fatal void in the plaintiff's case. The evidence above referred to is very similar to that in Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 116 Ga.App. 391, 157 S.E.2d 526. As in Scott, we are not concerned with any issue of proof with respect to knowledge by the defendant or its agents o......
-
Price v. Star Service & Petroleum Corp., s. 44213
...demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of fact on that issue. Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 118 S.E.2d 193; Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 116 Ga.App. 391, 157 S.E.2d 526. The burden thus shifted to plaintiffs to come up with evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of fact......
-
Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes
...in favor of the plaintiff. And ruling to the contrary: Dykes v. Hammock, 116 Ga.App. 389, 157 S.E.2d 524; Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 116 Ga.App. 391(1), 157 S.E.2d 526; McKnight v. Guffin, 118 Ga.App. 168(4), 162 S.E.2d 743; Davis v. Ferrell, 118 Ga.App. 690, 692, 165 S.E.2d 313 and Chandler ......
-
Brown v. J. C. Penney Company, 45707
...distinguishing the situation here from those in Collins v. S. H. Kress & Co., 114 Ga.App. 159(2), 150 S.E.2d 373; Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 116 Ga.App. 391, 157 S.E.2d 526; W. T. Grant Co. v. Phillips, 116 Ga.App. 650, 158 S.E.2d 312 and Martin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 120 Ga.App. 66, 67, 16......