§

Davidson v. Harris Inc.

79 Ga. App. 788 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
Davidson v. Harris Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Davidson v. Harris Incorporated

    59 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    GARDNER, J. This case is based upon the same state of facts as will be found in Davidson v. Harris Inc., 79 Ga. App. 788 ( 54 S.E.2d, 290). In that case the wife of the present plaintiff brought suit for alleged injuries which she received by reason of the negligence of the defendant and its servants.

  2. Belk-Hudson Co. v. Davis

    132 Ga. App. 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 13 times

    Thus where the proprietor has no notice of dangerous conduct on the part of customers or third persons on the occasion in question, he cannot be held liable for injuries to an invitee resulting from that conduct. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Cox, 51 Ga. App. 880, supra; Davidson v. Harris, Inc., 79 Ga. App. 788 ( 54 S.E.2d 290) and Davidson v. Harris, Inc., 81 Ga. App. 665 ( 59 S.E.2d 551); Lincoln v. Wilcox, 111 Ga. App. 365 ( 141 S.E.2d 765). See also Stewart v. Mynatt, 135 Ga. 637, 639 (3) ( 70 S.E. 325); Covington v. S. H. Kress Co., 102 Ga. App. 204 ( 115 S.E.2d 621); Shockley v. Zayre of Atlanta, Inc., 118 Ga. App. 672 ( 165 S.E.2d 179).

  3. Williams v. United States

    352 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 17 times
    Interpreting Georgia law

    Accord: Southern Airways Company v. Sears Roebuck Company, 1962, 106 Ga. App. 615, 127 S.E.2d 708; Porter v. Jack's Cookie Company, 1962, 106 Ga. App. 497, 127 S.E.2d 313. Accord: Corum v. Edwards-Warren Tire Co., 1964, 110 Ga. App. 33, 137 S.E.2d 738, 739; Davidson v. Harris, 1949, 79 Ga. App. 788, 54 S.E.2d 290, 293-295. In our view, Smith's failure to return the injury-causing simulator constituted negligent performance of an authorized act done in furtherance of Government business.

  4. Dickinson v. Eden Theatre Co.

    360 Mo. 941 (Mo. 1950)   Cited 13 times
    In Dickinson v. Eden Theatre Co., 360 Mo. 941, 231 S.W.2d 609, 610[1], we said: "The proprietor of a place of public amusement is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons or invitees, the care required of him being `that which is reasonably adapted to the character of the exhibitions given, the amusements offered, the places to which patrons resort, and also, in some cases, the customary conduct of spectators of such exhibitions.

    (3) The record is barren of any evidence which would warrant a jury in so finding. Reay v. Reorganization Inv. Co., 224 S.W.2d 580; Davidson v. Harris, Inc., 79 Ga. App. 788, 54 S.E.2d 290; Hickey v. Fox-Ozark Theatre Corp., 156 Kan. 137, 131 P.2d 671; Dahna v. Clay County Fair Assn., 6 N.W.2d 843; Hawkins v. Maine New Hampshire Theatres Co., 164 A. 628; Noonan v. Sheraton, 230 Ky. 212, 18 S.W.2d 976; Barton v. Pepin County Agricultural Society, 52 N.W. 1129; Klisch v. Alaskan Amusement Co., 153 Kan. 93, 109 P.2d 75; Morrison v. Union Park Assn., 129 Me. 88, 149 A. 804; Kerns v. Dykes, 226 Mo. App. 912, 48 S.W.2d 183. (4) Even if it had been shown that Dieckhorner was accustomed to conducting himself in a manner likely to cause injury to defendant's patrons, the record is silent as to whether he was so acting immediately prior to plaintiff's fall. The res ipsa loquitur rule does not apply.