Shuman Supply of Savannah, Inc. v. Skinner

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: EVANS; CLARK
• Citation: Shuman Supply of Savannah, Inc. v. Skinner, 197 S.E.2d 152, 128 Ga.App. 431 (Ga. App. 1973)
• Decision Date: 07 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 47916,No. 2,47916,2
• Parties: SHUMAN SUPPLY OF SAVANNAH, INC. v. Larry W. SKINNER

Page 152

197 S.E.2d 152

128 Ga.App. 431

SHUMAN SUPPLY OF SAVANNAH, INC. v. Larry W. SKINNER.

No. 47916.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

March 7, 1973.

Kennedy & Sognier, John W. Sognier, Savannah, for appellant.

Smith & Portman, Alex L. Zipperer, W. Lance Smith, Savannah, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EVANS, Judge.

Larry W. Skinner sued Shuman Supply of Savannah, Inc. for personal injuries. Plaintiff alleged that he was an invitee on the business premises of defendant as a customer to purchase building materials, and during this time he suffered injuries as a result of defendant's negligence. He alleges that an employee of defendant drove a forklift truck into him in a reckless, negligent and careless manner, thereby causing his injuries; and that defendant negligently failed to use reasonable care to warn him of the dangers which defendant knew to exist upon his premises; failed to reasonably inspect the premises to discover dangerous conditions of which plaintiff was not aware; and failed to take reasonable precautions to protect him from dangers foreseeable from the use of defendant's equipment.

Motion for summary judgment was filed by the defendant based upon the pleadings and depositions of file. After hearing, the motion was denied. The appeal is from that judgment. Held:

Defendant contends that plaintiff, as a customer, had purchased building supplies and placed same in his car; and walked back into the warehouse to obtain some string or a flag to put upon his purchases; that plaintiff walked down an aisle past a parked forklift and went under or around the same to the rear of the warehouse; that plaintiff came out of the building by the same route, and struck his head on the parked forklift; that the forklift had not been moved during this sequence of events; that plaintiff had ducked under or gone around same while going into the premises; and that the forklift was clearly visible. However, an examination of the record does not disclose the evidence to be as simple as contended by the defendant. The deposition of an employee of defendant discloses that the warehouse was crowded; that he and plaintiff walked into the warehouse to obtain some string or flag to tie on the lumber purchased, and by the time they started back out the forklift was parked there in the way.

The evidence is conflicting, or not positive and definite, as to several important phases of the case. Plaintiff walked beside the employee down the aisles of the warehouse, or he walked behind said employee; plaintiff walked into the loaded blades...