In that case this court held: "Whether or not the condition of the bottom step, of which the injured person had knowledge at the time she attempted the descent of the steps, was sufficient to charge her with knowledge of the defect in the particular step, the breaking of which produced the injury, and to show a want of ordinary care on her part in attempting to use the steps at all, is a question for determination by the jury." For similar holdings, see Johnson v. Collins, 98 Ga. 271 ( 26 S.E. 744); Roach v. LeGree, 18 Ga. App. 250 ( 89 S.E. 167); Harris v. Riser, 30 Ga. App. 765 ( 119 S.E. 432); Miller v. Jones, 31 Ga. App. 318 ( 120 S.E. 672); Coker v. Murphey, 66 Ga. App. 586 ( 18 S.E.2d 572); Ball v. Murray, 91 Ga. App. 686 ( 86 S.E.2d 706). See also Durrett v. Tunno, 113 Ga. App. 839 ( 149 S.E.2d 826).