LAW.coLAW.co

Archer v. Blalock et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia1896-02-07
97 Ga. 719

Summary

Holding. The judgment dismissing the petition was reversed. Property owners who invite others onto their premises for lawful purposes must exercise ordinary care to keep the premises and their approaches reasonably safe; where an owner is aware of a defective condition and fails to repair it despite notice, the injured invitee may maintain an action for damages.

J. M. Archer sued Blalock & Morrow for injuries sustained when he fell through defective steps leading to a storehouse the defendants owned and rented to a tenant. The steps, which featured a rotten plank, were designed for use by customers entering the rented storehouse as well as other buildings on the property owned and occupied by the defendants themselves. Archer alleged that the defendants knew of the defect, had been warned about it the day before the accident, and could have repaired it quickly but failed to do so. Archer did not know the steps were unsafe when he used them.

The trial court dismissed the case by sustaining a general demurrer. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendants owed Archer a duty of care. As property owners who by invitation induced customers onto their premises for lawful business purposes, the defendants were required to exercise ordinary care to maintain safe conditions. Because Archer's petition adequately alleged facts establishing his cause of action—including the defendants' knowledge of the defect and their failure to repair despite timely notice—dismissal was improper.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Duty of property owners to maintain safe premises for invited visitors
  • Liability for injuries from defective conditions known to the owner
  • Standard of care required when customers are expressly or impliedly invited onto property

Procedural posture

After the trial court sustained a general demurrer and dismissed the petition, Archer appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Simmons, Chief Justice.

J. M. Archer, on the 15th of February, 1892, filed his petition against Blalock & Morrow, in which he alleged: Defendants have damaged him $1,000. On the first Tuesday in March, 1891, they owned a storehouse in Jonesboro on Main street and running back to a street on the west end of the storehouse, which storehouse was then and is now occupied by W. S. Archer as their tenant. On the west end of the storehouse the defendants had erected a platform from which a set of steps led to the street, up and over which customers were invited to enter the store for the purpose of trading therein. Defendants were bound to furnish a safe -way to enter the store, and to keep the same in repair and safe for customers to enter and go out. On said day he entered the store, and, after transacting his business there, went out and attempted to descend said steps. lie stepped on a plank in the steps which was rotten and broke, whereby he fell through the steps and sustained certain injuries to his person, the nature and extent of which are set out in the petition. Defendants well knew of the defective condition of the steps, and their attention was called to it the day before petitioner was hurt. It could have been remedied in ten minutes, and yet, well knowing the facts, defendants neglected to have the necessary repairs made. Petitioner did not know of any defect in the steps or plank but thought it was .safe, and did not have any idea of danger, and walked on it and was hurt as above mentioned. “The steps leading from the street to the platform by which plaintiff was seeking to enter was a platform used in common to reach the storehouse occupied by W. S. Archer and other storehouses” of defendants and occupied by them.

The court dismissed the petition on general demurrer, and the plaintiff excepted.

"Where the owner or occupier of land, by invitation express or implied, induces others to come upon his premises for a lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or its approaches; and under such an express or implied invitation he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit. Atlanta Cotton Seed Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145; Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Robertson, 95 Ga. 430. Under oar code, the duty of keeping rented premises in repair rests primarily upon the landlord. (§2284.) According to the allegations in the plaintiff’s petition, the injary complained of was occasioned by a defective step in a platform erected by the defendants apon premises owned by them, and the platform and steps were intended to be used not only for the parpóse of entering the storehoase occupied by their tenant, where theplaintiff had been transacting business on the occasion referred to, bat for the parpóse also of reaching other storehoases owned by them, and occapied by the defendants themselves. It appears that the defendants knew of the defect which caased the injary, and had been notified of it in time to have made the necessary repairs before the injaryoccarred. It farther appears that the plaintiff did not know of any defect in the steps, hat supposed they were safe. Under the facts alleged, the plaintiff had a good cause of action, and the coart erred in sastaining the demurrer.

Cited by counsel for plaintiff in error: 58 Ga. 206; 63 Ga. 612; 68 Ga. 40; 85 Ga. 146; 49 Ga. 272; 80 Ga. 145(2); Code, §2284; 126 Mass. 374; 54 N. H. 426; 70 Ill. 122; 49 Mich. 164; 53 Mich. 507; Buswell, Law of Personal Injuries, §90, Id. §81. See 1 Tayl. Landl. & Ten. §175; 9 Allen, 17.

Cited for defendants in error: Code, §§2277, 2284; 58 Ga. 204; 55 Ga. 180; 56 Ga. 20, 21; 38 Ga. 542(4); Buswell, Personal Injuries, §§90, 79, 80, 83, 115; Bishop, Non-Contract Law, §852; 44 Ga. 251; 59 Barb. 497; 56 N. Y. 398; L. R., 2 C. P. Div. 311; 36 Ga. 14.

Judgment reversed.