King v. Davison-Paxon Company., 104 Ga. App. 822, 123 S.E.2d 269 (1961)
Linked as:
Text
Hatcher, Smith, Stubbs & Rothschild, Albert W. Stubbs, contra.Edward P. Murrah, Jr., Frank U. Garrard, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
The petition of the plaintiff, seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained because of the defendant's alleged negligence while plaintiff was an invitee in defendant's store, did not state a cause of action; and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer thereto.
Carolyn W. King filed suit in the City Court of Columbus against Davison-Paxon Co. for injuries sustained by the plaintiff because of the defendant's alleged negligence, while plaintiff was an invitee in defendant's store.
The essential allegations of her amended petition were as follows: "Upon entering defendant's store, plaintiff observed a rack upon which ladies' slacks were displayed.
"Plaintiff shows that said slack rack was situated between two pyramidal three-level display racks so as to form an aisle or passageway between said slack rack and each of said pyramidal display racks.
"Plaintiff shows that the lowest shelf of one of said pyramidal display racks stood approximately eighteen (18) inches from the level of the floor in said store.
"Plaintiff shows that the distance between the slack rack and the lowest shelf of said pyramidal display rack was approximately one foot.
"Plaintiff shows that defendant intended for customers to enter the aisle or passageway between the slack rack and said pyramidal display rack, as evidenced by the fact that slacks were hung on the side of the slack rack facing toward the pyramidal display rack.
"Plaintiff entered the passageway between the slack rack and said pyramidal display rack, faced toward the slack rack, and began looking through the merchandise hung on the slack rack.
"Upon selecting a pair of slacks which she wished to buy, plaintiff turned to take the slacks to a nearby dressing room to try the slacks on.
"In turning, plaintiff struck her left knee with great force against the corner of the lowest level of the pyramidal display rack.
"Plaintiff shows that the said pyramidal display rack and the slack rack had been placed too close together.
"Plaintiff shows that the display racks were instrumentalities under the exclusive control of defendant, and were obviously placed in their respective positions by the defendant's employees.
"Plaintiff shows that the fact that the racks were placed in such close proximity to each other made ingress to and egress from the slack rack dangerous."
The trial court sustained the defendant's general demurrer and dismissed the plaintiff's petition as amended. The exception is to that judgment.
"A merchant must have a place to locate his goods, counters, and applicance with which to conduct his business, and when such appliances are not placed so as to threaten dancer to those visiting the store, and are in full sight, and within the observation of everyone, the merchant is not liable for accidents which result from carelessness and inattention to the surroundings." Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co.,
The petition as amended therefore did not state a cause of action against the defendant and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff's petition.
Judgment affirmed. Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.
Sponsored links
