From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Card v. Chichester's Baconsfield Pharmacy, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 16, 1965
141 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)

Opinion

41057.

DECIDED MARCH 16, 1965.

Action for damages. Bibb Superior Court. Before Judge Long.

Adams, O'Neal, Steele, Thornton Hemingway, H. T. O'Neal, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Jones, Sparks, Benton Cork, Frank C. Jones, contra.


This case is controlled adversely to the plaintiff in error by the case of Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 110 Ga. App. 170 ( 138 S.E.2d 77). In Division 2 of the opinion in Gibson, the principal holding is that the petition did not state a cause of action against the defendant for negligence since nothing was alleged which, if proved, would be sufficient to show negligence. That holding at least in the badly split decision received the unquestioned concurrence of five judges, a majority of the court. See Judge Hall's special concurrence in which he agreed fully with Judge Eberhardt's view on this point.

The petition here in all material aspects has such a resemblance to the petition in Gibson as to be essentially the same. It follows that the holding in Gibson is applicable here and requires affirmance of the trial court's judgment in sustaining the defendant's general demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff's petition.

Judgment affirmed. Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.

DECIDED MARCH 16, 1965.


Summaries of

Card v. Chichester's Baconsfield Pharmacy, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 16, 1965
141 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Case details for

Card v. Chichester's Baconsfield Pharmacy, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CARD v. CHICHESTER'S BACONSFIELD PHARMACY, INC

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Mar 16, 1965

Citations

141 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
111 Ga. App. 358

Citing Cases

Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Reid

However, it is clear that Sears' knowledge in this respect was not superior to that of plaintiff, and no…

Holtzclaw v. Lindsay

"This court has held ... that a business proprietor cannot reasonably be expected to prevent the presence of…