Taff v. Harris, s. 43690
| Decision Date | 08 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 43690,No. 1,43691,s. 43690,1 |
| Citation | 164 S.E.2d 881,118 Ga.App. 611 |
| Parties | Lila TAFF v. Cecil HARRIS et al. J. E. TAFF v. Cecil HARRIS et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles A. Gower, Columbus, James Joiner, Atlanta, for appellants.
Kelly, Champion & Henson, John W. Denney, J. Norman Pease, Ray Allison, F. L. Champion, Jr., Columbus, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Failure to place guardrails on the entrance porch to a dwelling is not negligence. Laurens v. Rush, 116 Ga.App. 65, 70, 156 S.E.2d 482. It is not an uncommon practice in house construction, and there is no breach of any duty in the adoption of a type of construction that is in general use. The owner of the house is not an insurer of the safety of his guests or of his servants who enter and leave, and the Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Floyd, 3 Ga.App. 257, 259, 59 S.E. 826, 827. 'The fact of the additional allegation that there was no guardrail or banisters on the outdoor step did not change the situation so as to create a dangerous situation and reasonable care did not require the defendant to prevent or remedy the condition.' Butler v. Jones, 85 Ga.App. 158, 163, 68 S.E.2d 173, 177.
To authorize a recovery it would have to appear that the porch or entrance, as construted, was less safe than those provided by ordinarily prudent owners and occupiers of land for their invitees. Pettit v. Stiles Hotel Co., 97 Ga.App. 137, 102 S.E.2d 693; Kahn v. Graper, 114 Ga.App. 572, 575, 152 S.E.2d 10. And see Roberts v. Wicker, 213 Ga. 352, 99 S.E.2d 84.
2. Holman v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 201 Ga. 454, 460, 39 S.E.2d 850, 855. 'If the danger is obvious, and as easily known to the servant as to the master, the latter will not be liable for failing to warn him of it.' Crown Cotton Mills v. McNally, 123 Ga. 35, 51 S.E. 13. If the servant 'had equal means with the master of discovering the danger, any injury resulting to him would be the result of his own fault.' McDonnell v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 118 Ga. 86, 44 S.E. 840, 842.
3. Where it appeared that plaintiff was employed by defendant to go to defendant's house to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Oil Co. v. Harris, s. 44523
...see Pettit v. Stiles Hotel Co., 97 Ga.App. 137, 102 S.E.2d 693; Kahn v. Graper, 114 Ga.App. 572, 575, 152 S.E.2d 10; Taff v. Harris, 118 Ga.App. 611, 164 S.E.2d 881. However, this was a matter that movant should have dealt with in connection with the motion, and its failure to do so leaves ......
-
Slaughter v. Slaughter
...by ordinarily prudent homeowners for their invitees. Brand v. Pope, 103 Ga.App. 489, 491, 119 S.E.2d 723. Accord: Taff v. Harris, 118 Ga.App. 611, 164 S.E.2d 881; Pettit v. Stiles Hotel Co., 97 Ga.App. 137, 102 S.E.2d 693. And, if the object over which the plaintiff falls is not hidden, cam......
-
Wright Body Works, Inc. v. Columbus Interstate Ins. Agency
...a defendant to such summary judgment. Examples as Southland Butane Gas Co. v. Blackwell, 211 Ga. 665, 88 S.E.2d 6; Taff v. Harris, 118 Ga.App. 611, 164 S.E.2d 881; Crawford v. McDonald, 125 Ga.App. 289, 187 S.E.2d 542; Seaboard C.L.R. Co. v. Sheffield, 127 Ga.App. 580, 194 S.E.2d 484; and P......
-
Shuman v. Mashburn
...sole proximate cause: Benson v. Action Elec. Co. Inc., 131 Ga.App. 623, 206 S.E.2d 647; (c) assumption of obvious risk: Taff v. Harris, 118 Ga.App. 611, 164 S.E.2d 881; (d) minor difference in floor levels: Lamberson v. Norris, 135 Ga.App. 647, 218 S.E.2d 658 and citations therein; (e) rail......