Williamson v. Kidd

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: MacINTYRE, Judge.
• Citation: Williamson v. Kidd, 65 Ga.App. 285, 15 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. App. 1941)
• Decision Date: 14 July 1941
• Docket Number: 28803.
• Parties: WILLIAMSON v. KIDD et al.

15 S.E.2d 801

65 Ga.App. 285

WILLIAMSON v. KIDD et al.

No. 28803.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

July 14, 1941

Harold Karp, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Claud F. Brackett, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

MacINTYRE Judge.

When this case was formerly before this court it was reversed on the ground that the petition should have been dismissed on demurrer. Kidd v. Williamson, 61 Ga.App. 890, 8 S.E.2d 590. The original petition and its amendments were set forth in detail there and reference is now made to that case. After that ruling by this court, the plaintiff amended her petition again and alleged in effect that at the time of said repairs the defendant replaced the defective tread with new lumber and added extra "cleats" to the stringer and the cleats and tread were nailed securely by plaintiff and defendant at that time. She further alleged that from the time of the repairs until the time of her injury (a period of about thirteen months) "one of the stringers of said

steps became rotten, causing the nails holding the tread thereon to become loosened and allowing said tread to slip off said stringer and causing petitioner to fall and sustain the injuries hereinafter set out." This stringer which became rotten was in good condition at the time of said repairs and the repairs were not made at the point on the steps which became defective. Since her injury she has learned that the defective condition existed at the time of her injury. She alleged that the "rotted areas of both the tread and the stringer could not be seen by petitioner by ordinary observation, and defendant did not call petitioner's attention to such rotted condition of the steps," and that the defendant knew or should have known of the rotten and dangerous condition of the stringer and was negligent in allowing the tread to remain on the stringer of the steps in its rotten condition when the defendant knew or should have known that the wood being rotten the nails would not hold. The original acts of negligence were stricken by amendment, and the plaintiff now in effect predicates her petition on the theory that it was the absolute duty of the defendant, after the dangerous and defective condition of the steps arose, to make an inspection of the steps for the purpose of keeping them in repair. The judge, on general demurrer, dismissed the petition as amended and the plaintiff excepted.

It seems to be the rule in this State that it is the duty of the master, where the place to work, as here, is permanent, to exercise ordinary care to make the place to work safe (Middle Georgia & A. Ry. Co. v. Barnett, 104 Ga. 582, 585, 30 S.E. 771), as distinguished from providing the servant with a reasonably safe place to work. See Otis Elevator Co. v Rogers, 159 Ga. 53, 54, 125 S.E. 60, where the Supreme Court was equally divided, and Otis Elevator Co. v Rogers, 33 Ga.App. 181, 125 S.E. 763 where this court adopted the former view. Under our Code, § 105-401 (which is a codification of the common law) "Where the owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to...