Watson v. Citizens & Southern Bank
| Decision Date | 05 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38778,No. 2,38778,2 |
| Citation | 103 Ga.App. 535,120 S.E.2d 62 |
| Parties | Harvey WATSON v. CITIZENS & SOUTHERN BANK |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John Henry Poole, Tifton, for plaintiff in error.
Burt & Burt, Albany, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The plaintiff in this case alleged that he stepped on a glass bottle which had been left on a stairway on the defendant's premises, and was by that occurrence propelled down the stairway sustaining injuries for which he sued. By amendment he alleged that the bottle on which he stepped had been on the stairway for three or four days prior to the time he stepped on it and that the neglect of the defendant to remove said bottle for that length of time amounted to the failure to exercise ordinary care and diligence. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended his petition, and without striking prior allegations in this regard, alleged By a subsequent amendment, and again without striking prior allegations, the plaintiff aleged, 'plaintiff does not know for what length of time said bottle, on which he stepped, had been on the steps, but does hereby allege that * * * it was failure upon the part of defendant to exercise ordinary care, toward plaintiff, to keep said stairway safe, regardless of the length of time the bottle had been on the steps. Held:
It is fundamental that on general demurrer a petition must be construed most strongly against the plaintiff and if when so construed it fails to state a cause of action it should be dismissed. Assuming that the allegations of the plaintiff's petition show that he was an invitee on the premises of the defendant and that the defendant owed him the duty of exercising ordinary care to keep its premises safe, the petition, when construed most strongly against the plaintiff, wholly fails to allege a violation of any duty in this regard. No matter how innocent the plaintiff may be, he is not entitled to recover unless the defendant did something that it should not have done, or failed to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slaughter v. Slaughter
...but not deciding, that plaintiff was an invitee. 'A landowner is not the insurer of an invitee's safety.' Watson v. Citizens & Southern Bank, 103 Ga.App. 535, 536, 120 S.E.2d 62, 64. Before a recovery is authorized for the plaintiff in an action against a homeowner for injuries suffered by ......
-
Amear v. Hall
...Authority, 160 Ga.App. 555, 287 S.E.2d 619. However, a landowner is not an insurer of an invitee's safety. Watson v. C & S Natl. Bank, 103 Ga.App. 535, 536, 120 S.E.2d 62; Hammonds v. Jackson, 132 Ga.App. 528, 531, 208 S.E.2d 366. The invitee must also exercise ordinary care for his own saf......
-
Emory University v. Williams
...410; Denmon v. Rich's, Inc., supra; Angel v. Varsity, Inc., supra; Winters v. Morrison's Cafeteria, Inc., supra; Watson v. C. & S. Bank, 103 Ga.App. 535, 120 S.E.2d 62; Home Fed. Savings & etc. v. Hulsey, 106 Ga.App. 171, 126 S.E.2d 541; Mitchell Motors, Inc. v. Tatum, 120 Ga.App. 689, 172 ......
-
Stouffer Corp. v. Henkel, 67138
...be shown that it had notice, either actual or constructive, of the presence of the [plank] on" its premises. Watson v. C & S Bank, 103 Ga.App. 535, 536, 120 S.E.2d 62 (1961). Our review of the transcript demonstrates that the only evidence which would show that appellant had the requisite p......