Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: MACINTYRE, Judge.
• Citation: Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 70 Ga.App. 390, 28 S.E.2d 322 (Ga. App. 1943)
• Decision Date: 10 November 1943
• Docket Number: 30104.
• Parties: TINLEY v. F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.

28 S.E.2d 322

70 Ga.App. 390

TINLEY v. F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.

No. 30104.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

November 10, 1943

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1943.

Syllabus by the Court.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant, a corporation engaged in the sale of merchandise, for injuries alleged to have been caused by striking her foot against the bottom of some scales that were sitting in the aisle of the defendant's store. She further alleged that she was an invitee, having gone into the store for the purpose of purchasing merchandise; and that "at the time and place complained of the said defendant had in the front part of its store, near the candy counter, a pair of scales which were used by the customers of said defendant to weigh themselves upon by placing a penny in a slot attached to this scale. This pair of scales was ordinarily placed up against the wall of the store, but on the occasion complained of the said scales had been removed two to three feet from the wall out into the aisleway over which customers passed going in and from said store; that the said store had three doors on the front leading from the sidewalk on Cherry Street into the store, one on each side of the store, and one in the middle. The prospective customer could enter the store from any one of the doors. The said scales usually were kept up against the wall of the store, and about two feet on the left side of the left front door facing the front of the said store near the candy counter. The platform of the scales, the part a person stands on to weigh, is about thirteen inches from front to the back and about eleven and one-half inches wide. The length of scales, from front to back is about twenty-three inches. The upright piece at the back, the part the coin is deposited in, is about six inches wide and about four and a half feet high. The distance from the floor of the building to the bottom of the platform of the scales is about one inch. The scales are made of iron or steel and weigh about 100 pounds. The candy counter looking toward the front and extending to about three feet of the front wall of the store. The scales at the time plaintiff was injured was in the aisleway, or passageway, over which customers passed going in and out of said store. The upright part of the scales which is the back part, was pointing toward the corner of the store where the front wall and east wall come together, and the platform part of the scales was in the passageway over which customers went in and out of the store. That at the time her foot struck the bottom of said scale she was looking at some merchandise displayed on the counter near her, and the scales not being in line of her vision she did not see them; that there was no duty on her to make any inspection of the aisleway or passageway to ascertain that it was safe before walking down the same, but there was a duty upon the said defendant, its agents and employees, to keep the aisleways, passageways, or walkways of the store safe and free from obstruction and defect, and if for any reason there were obstructions or defects in said passageways, it was the duty of said defendant and its agents to have given notice and warning to your petitioner or other customers that said obstructions or defects were there; that said defendant, at the time complained of, was operating a ten cent store in said building, working more than twenty-five employees, some of whom were working about five or ten feet from the place where the scales were at the time plaintiff was injured. The said defendant, its agents and employees, knew said scales were in said passageway, but the plaintiff did not know, nor could she, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence have discovered that the said scales were in said passageway that at the time and place complained of she was in exercise of ordinary care and diligence, and by the exercise of the same she could not avoid the consequences of the defendant's negligence; that she was impliedly invited to enter said store by said defendant for the purpose of purchasing some merchandise owned by the said defendant; that she was impliedly invited to walk down the aisle to look at the merchandise displayed on the counters with a view of buying the same; and that it was the duty of the said defendant, while she was walking down the aisle looking at said merchandise, to keep said passageways or corridors free from any obstructions; that on May 19, 1942, she went into said store for the purpose of purchasing some ...