Scott v. Rich's Inc
| Decision Date | 26 September 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 22615.,22615. |
| Citation | 171 S.E. 201,47 Ga.App. 548 |
| Parties | SCOTT. v. RICH'S, Inc. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, in a mercantile establishment to which the public is invited to do business, steps which lead from one floor to another, and which are used by the customers of the owner and occupier of the building, are constructed of hard-surface marble, and from continued use have become polished, round-edged, smooth, slick, and slippery, and there are no safety treads upon them, and the steps are from five and a half to six and a half feet wide, and there is no center guard rail, and the side guard rails are out of reach of customers from the center of the steps, and where a customer, not aware of the described condition of the steps, is descending them in the center, and while they are congested with numerous patrons using them, and is carefully looking where she is stepping, and her foot slips and she falls and is injured physically, and where the occupier of the building has knowingly maintained the steps in this condition, the petition in a suit by the injured person against the occupier of the building to recover for the damages thus sustained, which alleges that the defendant knowingly maintained the steps in the condition described, and that this was negligence proximately causing the injury, sets out a cause of action.
2. It was error to sustain the demurrer to the petition.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.
Petition by L. L. Scott against Rich's, Incorporated. To review a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
The petition as amended, in substance, alleges that the defendant, Rich's Incorporated, is engaged in the business of selling merchandise in a building located in the city of Atlanta; that there are steps in the building leading from one floor to another for the accommodation or the defendant's customers in going from one floor to another; that the steps are constructed of hard-surface marble, and from continued use have become polished, round-edged, smooth, slick, and slippery; that there are no safety treads on the steps; that the width of the steps are from five and a half to six and a half feet; that there is no center guard rail, and the side guard rails are out of reach of customers from the center of the steps; that the plaintiff, a customer in the store, was in the act of descending the steps in the center while they were congested with numerous patrons using the steps, and, while descending the steps, on account of the described condition of the steps, of which she was not aware, although she was descending them carefully and looking where she was stepping, her foot slipped and she fell and was injured physically as set out in the petition; that the described condition of the steps rendered them dangerous to persons using them; that the defendant, withknowledge of the condition of the steps, had maintained them in that condition for some time; and that the defendant in so doing was guilty of negligence. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained.
Knight & Patterson, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Harold Hirsch & Marion Smith and Welborn B. Cody, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error,
STEPHENS, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).
It is the duty of the owner or occupier of premises upon which he expressly or by implication invites others to come to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a condition safe for the use of persons thus invited upon the premises. Civil Code 1910, § 4420. If, by reason of the negligence of the owner or occupier of a building to which the public is invited, the steps are maintained in a condition unsafe to the persons using them, and if by reason of such defect a person lawfully in the building using the steps is injured without fault on his part, the occupier or owner of the building is responsible in damages therefor.
This case cames up on demurrer, and there is presented solely the question as to the condition of the steps as alleged by the plaintiff in the petition. The allegations in the petition show a dangerous condition in the steps. They show that the steps had become slick and slippery and round-edged, etc., from long usage, and that there was danger of slipping to any one using the steps. The allegations of the petition further show that this danger was enhanced by there being no guard rail in the center of the steps by which a person descending them might steady himself. The petition alleges also that the defendant was negligent in not having safety treads upon the steps.
As it is the duty of the owner or occupier of a building to which the public is invited to use ordinary care to maintain it in a condition of safety to persons using the building, it is the duty of the occupier to use ordinary care to maintain the steps in the building used by its customers in a condition reasonably safe against accidents from slipping. It seems to be at least a jury question whether the maintenance of the steps by the defendant in its building in the condition described in the petition was negligence. In Mandeville Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga. App. 607, 58 S. E. 1060, it appeared from the petition that "there were no banisters, or railing, to said stairway, and the steps upon the same from long and constant use had become very slick." The court held that it was a question of fact as to whether the occupier of the building was negligent, as respects a person lawfully upon the premises, in maintaining the steps in that condition. So far as appears from the report of that case, it was not alleged in the petition that the stairway was more worn or slippery than those in ordinary use in buildings of the character of the building in which the stairway was located. The court in the opinion said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.
...full appreciation of the risk involved. Burns v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 105 Ga.App. 823, 125 S.E.2d 687; Scott v. Rich's, Inc., 47 Ga.App. 548, 551, 171 S.E. 201. We are not concerned in this case solely with the question of maintenance as was the court in Hill v. Davison-Paxon C......
-
Martin v. Henson
...* * * it is a question for the jury as to what is required of the customer under the facts of each case.' See also Scott v. Rich's, Inc., 47 Ga.App. 548, 171 S.E. 201, 203, wherein it is said: 'The principle is too well settled to require a citation of authorities to support it that mere kn......
-
Atkinson v. Kirchoff Enterprises, Inc.
...or defective condition does not necessarily constitute "full appreciation of the risk involved." See, e.g., Scott v. Rich's, 47 Ga.App. 548, 551, 171 S.E. 201 (1933); Goldsmith v. Hazelwood, 93 Ga.App. 466, 469, 92 S.E.2d 48 (1956); Pippins v. Breman, 152 Ga.App. 226, 228, 262 S.E.2d 477 (1......
-
Wade v. Mitchell
...as well as every other material condition, the plaintiff is guilty of such negligence as to preclude recovery.' " Scott v. Rich's, 47 Ga.App. 548, 551, 171 S.E. 201. Here, appellant James Wade was merely aware that tires can explode; the record fails to establish that he fully comprehended ......