Venable v. Langford, 42904
| Decision Date | 05 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 42904,42904,3 |
| Parties | L. S. VENABLE et al. v. Beatrice LANGFORD |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A landowner has no duty to anticipate that children even though rightfully on his premises, may remove a leaky boat from a place of safety on the shore and, while playing in it in deep water and because of their inability to swim may be drowned, where there is no express invitation and no actual knowledge on the part of the owner that the children will remove such boat and appropriate it to their own uses.
The petition alleges in substance that the defendants own premises on which there are several lakes, swimming and fishing facilities and a stable for boarding horses which are operated for hire and to which the public is invited; that a friend of the decedent was boarding a horse in the defendants' stables and the two boys entered the property for the purpose of going to see it; that the route to this location passed between two lakes, on the shore of one of which a leaky boat had been drawn up but not secured; that the boys decided to paddle the boat out into the lake, and that when it reached a point about 60 feet from the shore it filled with water and sank. The plaintiff's 12 year old son, Larry, was unable to swim and was drowned. Negligence is charged against the defendants in maintaining an attractive nuisance, failing to fasten the boat, leaving it accessible to children, leaving it on the shore unfit for boating purposes, maintaining a boat with a hole in it which was an inherently dangerous instrumentality and hidden peril, failing to maintain the premises in a safe condition, and failing to warn the child of the danger. The defendants appeal from a judgment overruling general and special demurrers to the petition as amended.
Webb, Parker & Ferguson, John Tye Ferguson, Atlanta, for appellants.
Duncan & Gary, Ray Gary, Marietta, for appellee.
1. The attractive nuisance or turntable doctrine comprehends only instrumentalities inherently dangerous, as well as attractive tothe finder, such as weapons, explosives, turntables, or objects of that type which are not commonplace. The doctrine will not be extended to cases which on their facts do not come fully within this definition. Southern Bell Tel. & Co. v. Brackin, 215 Ga. 225(3), 109 S.E.2d 782; Starland Dairies, Inc. v. Evans, 105 Ga.App. 813(1b), 125 S.E.2d 682, et cit. Further: 'The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to ponds or other water hazards.' Fickling v. City Council of Augusta, 110 Ga.App. 330, 138 S.E.2d 437. A boat drawn up on the shore of a lake, which is of itself perfectly harmless and in a stable and static condition, does not fall within this category, and the petition sets out no cause of action based on attractive nuisance.
2. Although the petition alleged that plaintiff's decedent was an invitee of the defendants, the facts pleaded show that he entered the premises to accompany a friend whose horse was being boarded there, and he would under these facts be a licensee. Murray Biscuit Co., Inc. v. Hutto, 115 Ga.App. 870. 'Mere permission to enter the premises creates the relation of licensee; invitation, express or implied, is necessary to create the more responsible relation and the consequent higher duty upon the owner or proprietor.' Mandeville Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga.App. 607, 611, 58 S.E. 1060, 1062.
3. Assuming without deciding, however, that the petition alleges an implied invitation extended to the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montega Corp. v. Grooms, 47427
...of Augusta, 110 Ga.App. 330, 332, 138 S.E.2d 437, supra; Crews v. Slappey, 110 Ga.App. 496, 138 S.E.2d 919, supra; Venable v. Langford, 116 Ga.App. 257, 258, 157 S.E.2d 34. 5. Since it appears that the deceased was a trespasser, or, at most a bare licensee, the defendant 'would not be liabl......
-
Howard v. Gram Corp.
...or gratification and are therefore licensees. Restaura, supra, 216 Ga.App. at 887-888(1), 456 S.E.2d 219; Venable v. Langford, 116 Ga.App. 257, 258-259(2), 157 S.E.2d 34 (1967). Since the facts are undisputed that Howard had no present business relations with Gram but was simply accompanyin......
-
Bronesky v. Estech, Inc.
...no evidence giving rise to any express or implied invitation from appellee to appellant to climb the ramp. See Venable v. Langford, 116 Ga.App. 257, 260, 157 S.E.2d 34 (1967). Instead, the evidence shows only that appellant walked over to and ascended the ramp for his own purposes--to wait ......
-
Murray Biscuit Co. v. Hutto
...higher duty upon the owner or proprietor.' Mandeville Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga.App. 607, 611, 58 S.E. 1060, 1062; Venable v. Langford, 116 Ga.App. 257, 259, 157 S.E.2d 34. (Emphasis supplied.) And, assuming for the purpose of argument that the evidence in this case establishes a known, customary......