Wilson v. Holland

• Decision Date: 13 November 1957
• Docket Number: No. 36919,No. 2,36919,2
• Parties: R. C. WILSON v. J. K. HOLLAND
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 97

101 S.E.2d 97

96 Ga.App. 679

R. C. WILSON v. J. K. HOLLAND.

No. 36919.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Nov. 13, 1957.

J. Kurt Holland filed an action for damages in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against Ray C. Wilson for personal injuries sustained by him while on the premises of the defendant's garage, alleging facts substantially as follows: the defendant's automobile repair work is conducted in a garage building facing Paces Ferry Road, in which he also maintains his office. In another building to the rear is a body and paint shop, the front door of which is near the rear door of the garage. At about 6:30 p. m. on November 21, 1956, the plaintiff went to the body shop to get his automobile, which had been repaired there, and was handed a bill. He left the body shop for the defendant's office to pay the bill and, having on previous occasions seen employees of the body shop and garage and other persons walk through the rear door of the garage, undertook to go the same way. This doorway and steps leading thereto was visible on account of street lights and lights of surrounding buildings. The plaintiff mounted 4 steps, entered the building, mounted 3 more steps and stepped on the top landing. Immediately in front of him was a grease pit measuring about 6 by 15 feet surrounded by a walkway approximately 32 inches wide level with the top of the pit, the floor of the remaining portion of the garage, and the landing on which he was standing. The ceiling above the grease pit is 12 to 15 feet high. There is an opening between this area and the garage approximately 7 feet high and of uniform width with the area in which the grease pit is located. A light placed above the grease pit was not burning because the bulb had burned out. There was a light in the garage approximately 20 feet from the grease pit attached to a beam in such manner that the light was directed downward rather than towards the grease pit. An automobile at the far edge of the grease pit and between it and the light caused a shadow over the grease pit causing an optical illusion and causing the opening of the grease pit to become blackened out so that a person unacquainted with the premises as the plaintiff was would believe the opening of the grease pit was a solid floor. Otherwise the interior of the building used for a garage was visible. The plaintiff, after reaching the top step or landing, not knowing and not being able to see the grease pit due to the optical illusion created by the shadows, stepped into it, fell, and sustained certain described injuries. The plaintiff was an invitee on the premises. The defendant was negligent in maintaining a pitfull or mantrap without warning the plaintiff thereof; in failng to light said premises sufficiently to enable invitees to see the existence of the grease pit; in installing a light and placing a car so that the car threw a shadow over the pit; in failing to have any notice, signor warning signal; in failing to provide a landing of sufficient width on the top of the inside steps, and in failing to put guardrails around the pit.

The trial court overruled a general demurrer to the petition, and this judgment is assigned as error, it being contended that the allegations of the petition show that the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant's negligence.

B. Hugh Burgess, Decatur, for plaintiff in error.

Haas, Holland & Blackshear, M. H. Blackshear, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

TOWNSEND, Judge.

1. Under the allegations of the petition, the plaintiff was an invitee on the defendant's garage premises, and followed the shortest route from the body shop, where his automobile was located, through the rear door of the garage in order to enter the office and pay...