Simpson v. Dotson
| Decision Date | 22 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49624,No. 3,49624,3 |
| Citation | 133 Ga.App. 120,210 S.E.2d 240 |
| Parties | Paul SIMPSON v. Voncile DOTSON et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Spearman, Bynum & Kell, William Lewis Spearman, Duane B. Jackson, Atlanta, for appellant.
William H. Whaley, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Mrs. C. W. Dotson, a regular customer of Simpson's Food Store in Atlanta, entered the store from the rear parking lot and through the rear door, as was her custom and usual practice, on February 8, 1973, for the purpose of purchasing groceries. The parking lot in the rear is larger than the parking lot in front of the building, but was hardly ever cleaned up of litter and was allowed to remain littered practically all of the time. Because of her physical condition, Mrs. Dotson was required to walk with a cane. She left the store by the rear entrance, and took the shortest route to her car, in the falling rain. There was plenty of litter on the ground as she walked towards her car, and she walked through this litter until she came to a step-off, where she set her cane down and stepped off, then took about two steps and struck something hard which caused her to stumble and fall. She did not know exactly what she struck, but it was a hard object. The litter included paper sacks, garbage, napkins and rubbish, and everything like that. While she knew the litter was there, she did not know it was that bad. The rain was coming down hard enough to cause her to get wet. She had never walked in front of the parked cars in the rear parking lot, as she did on this occasion, but because of the rain she took the shortest route on this particular day.
Mrs. Dotson and her husband filed a joint suit against Paul Simpson, owner of the food store, for medical expense, loss of consortium, pain and suffering and disability, alleging the proximate cause of the injuries was the failure of defendant to keep the approaches to the business safe for invitees on the premises.
Defendant answered, denied liability, and contended that plaintiffs failed to state a claim; lack of ordinary care by Mrs. Dotson for her own safty; assumption of risk; last clear chance to avoid the consequences of the alleged negligence of defendant; that plaintiff's negligence was the proximate cause of her own injuries; and that her negligence was equal to or greater than was the defendant's negligence, if any.
After discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment, which was denied. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. The owner of a business is charged with a responsibility to keep the premises and approaches safe for invitees on the premises. Code § 105-401; Conaway v. McCrory Stores Corp., 82 Ga.App. 97, 60 S.E.2d 631; Smith v. Jewell Cotton Mill Co., 29 Ga.App. 461, 116 S.E. 17.
2. Questions of negligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause, and failure to exercise ordinary care to avoid the consequences of another's negligence, are generally questions properly placed within the province of the jury. Cox v. Norris, 70 Ga.App. 580(3), 28 S.E.2d 888; Long Const. Co. v. Ryals, 102 Ga.App. 66(1), 115 S.E.2d 726.
3. Summarys judgment can only be granted in those cases where undisputable, plain and palpable facts exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ as to the conclusion to be reached. Stukes v. Trowell, 119 Ga.App. 651, 168 S.E.2d 616; Malcom v. Malcolm, 112 Ga.App. 151, 144 S.E.2d 188.
4. The burden in summary judgment proceedings is upon the moving party to establish the lack of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Chandler
...duty rests upon it to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe for persons coming thereon by its invitation. Simpson v. Dotson, 133 Ga.App. 120, 122, 210 S.E.2d 240. An invitee may rely upon the proper discharge of this duty by the owner or occupier and is not, as a matter of law, g......
-
Mitchell v. Young Refining Corp.
...which resulted in the injury. Wasserman v. Southland Investment Corp., 105 Ga.App. 420, 124 S.E.2d 674 (1962); Simpson v. Dotson, 133 Ga.App. 120, 122, 210 S.E.2d 240 (1974). There are numerous situations, however, which the Georgia courts have held are so obviously dangerous that knowledge......
-
Williams v. Kennedy
...193, 160 S.E.2d 834, 836 (1968); Maddox, Bishop, Hayton, Inc. v. Lambdin, 123 Ga.App. 61, 179 S.E.2d 310 (1970); Simpson v. Dotson, 133 Ga.App. 120, 210 S.E.2d 240 (1974). We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case, and cannot say that the appellee's negligence was the sole proxi......
-
Hill v. Six Flags Over Georgia, Inc.
...his suit against Six Flags Over Georgia, Inc. See Holland v. Sanfax Corp., 106 Ga.App. 1(1), 4, 126 S.E.2d 442; Simpson v. Dotson, 133 Ga.App. 120, 122(4), 210 S.E.2d 240; Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551, 552-553, 181 S.E.2d 866; Whitehead v. Capital Automobile Co., 239 Ga. 460, 4......