Wootton v. City of Atlanta
| Decision Date | 06 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 38295,38295,2 |
| Parties | Nina E. WOOTTON v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
J. C. Savage, Newell Edenfield, T. J. Long, Ben Weinberg, Jr., Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a slippery substance on the floor of the terminal building at the Atlanta Municipal Airport, which she alleged is maintained by the City of Atlanta for the comfort and convenience of passengers and others and in which the defendant Dobbs Houses, Inc., operates a lunch counter at which patrons are served food and drink which they consume while standing in an areaway some 12 feet wide and generally traversed by members of the public of which the plaintiff was one; that the eating and the drinking of the food is done with the knowledge and consent of both defendants; that the defendants had not attempted to prevent this practice, and at 1:15 p. m. on September 24, 1958, petitioner slipped on a slippery substance, either food or drink, on the floor of the terminal building which had been dropped or spilled thereon by a customer of the defendant Dobbs Houses, Inc.; that the defendant Dobbs Houses, Inc., was negligent in permitting the eating and drinking of food and drink at the place in question and in the exercise of ordinary care knew, or should have known, that food or drink being consumed in such manner would be dropped or spilled upon the floor; that the City of Atlanta knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that food and drink would be dropped or spilled upon the portion of the floor immediately adjacent to the defendant Dobbs Houses, Inc., counter; that the defendant municipality failed to exercise its duty to keep the floor of the terminal clean and in safe condition for the passengers using the terminal building, and to remove all slippery substances from the floor; that the defendant municipality was negligent in failing to have the floor of the terminal property lighted so that said slippery spot could be seen, in that the only lighting provided for the floor at that location came from overhead lights high above the floor of the terminal building leaving the floor in the area between the lunch counter and the gift and news stand dimly lighted so that the presence of said slippery substance was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Mock
...would not be charged with negligence in failing to remove a substance placed there by someone else.' Wootton v. City of Atlanta, 101 Ga.App. 779, 780, 115 S.E.2d 396, 397, supra. (4) Where there are no conditions making the premises unusually dangerous, the law does not require the propriet......
-
Rogers v. Eckerd Drugs of Georgia, Inc., 57375
...exercise ordinary care in remedying it. See Winn-Dixie Stores v. Hardy, 138 Ga.App. 342, 226 S.E.2d 142 (1976); Wootton v. City of Atlanta, 101 Ga.App. 779, 115 S.E.2d 396 (1960). These enumerations of error are without 2. The plaintiff contends that the lower court erred in allowing defens......
-
Emory University v. Williams
...by our court involving restaurants. Chronologically, these are Pilgreen v. Hanson, 94 Ga.App. 423, 94 S.E.2d 752; Wootton v. City of Atlanta, 101 Ga.App. 779, 115 S.E.2d 396; Ward v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 109 Ga.App. 563, 136 S.E.2d 481; Angel v. Varsity, Inc., 113 Ga.App. 507, 148 S.E.......
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Hardy, WINN-DIXIE
...had knowledge or that under the circumstances he was chargeable with constructive knowledge of its existence. Wootton v. City of Atlanta, 101 Ga.App. 779, 780, 115 S.E.2d 396. Ordinarily a defendant would be allowed a reasonable time to exercise care in inspecting and keeping the premises i......