From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reiner v. David's Super Market, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 14, 1968
162 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

43328.

SUBMITTED JANUARY 10, 1968.

DECIDED JUNE 14, 1968.

Action for damages. Savannah City Court. Before Judge Oliver.

Joseph B. Bergen, Charles L. Sparkman, for appellant.

Richardson, Doremus Karsman, Stanley Karsman, for appellee.


Plaintiff brought this suit to recover for personal injuries sustained when he slipped on a fragment of loose tile lying on the floor in defendant's place of business. The action was filed prior to the effective date of the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, as amended by Ga. L. 1967, p. 226; Code Ann. Title 81A). However, the Civil Practice Act will be applied on appeal in reviewing the trial court's judgment rendered according to the former rules of procedure and sustaining defendant's general demurrers to the amended petition. See Hill v. Willis, 224 Ga. 263, 264 (1) ( 161 S.E.2d 281); Bazemore v. Burnet, 117 Ga. App. 849. Under the new procedure a complaint should be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with all doubts resolved in his favor; he is entitled to the most favorable inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the complaint, even if contrary inferences are also possible. Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga. App. 236, 238 ( 160 S.E.2d 260). So construing the petition, we infer that plaintiff, a business invitee, was unaware that the floor was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, although plaintiff had at some time complained to defendant's manager about obstructions on the floor, and that plaintiff in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety would not have discovered the loose fragment of title as its color blended visually with the floor. The general allegation of actual or constructive knowledge by defendant was sufficient. Code Ann. § 81A-109 (b); Bazemore v. Burnet, 117 Ga. App. 849, supra. As the petition states a claim when tested by the rules of construction applicable under the Civil Practice Act, the judgment of the trial court sustaining defendant's general demurrer will be reversed.

Judgment reversed. Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED JANUARY 10, 1968 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 1968.


Summaries of

Reiner v. David's Super Market, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 14, 1968
162 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Reiner v. David's Super Market, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:REINER v. DAVID'S SUPER MARKET, INC

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 14, 1968

Citations

162 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
162 S.E.2d 298

Citing Cases

Vickery v. General Finance Corp.

However, this case involves fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and conversion of the personal property of the…

Davis v. Boyd

1. The court did not err in overruling defendant's general demurrer to Count 2 of the petition. In this…