Opinion
23046.
SUBMITTED JULY 12, 1965.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1965.
Question certified by the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Martin, Snow, Grant Napier, Hendley v. Napier, for plaintiffs in error.
W. Horace Vandiver, Frank G. Wilson, contra.
"A question is improper which is so broad and indefinite as to admit of one answer under one set of circumstances, and a different answer under another. Each question certified must be a direct question or proposition of law clearly stated, so that it could be definitely answered without regard to other issues of law or of fact in the case." Willis v. Georgia Power Co., 178 Ga. 878 ( 174 S.E. 625); Fisher v. American Cas. Co., 194 Ga. 157, 158-159 ( 21 S.E.2d 68). The question submitted by the Court of Appeals is not one that this court can answer under the principle quoted, and the case is returned to the Court of Appeals without answer.
Question not answered. All the Justices concur.
SUBMITTED JULY 12, 1965 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1965.
The Court of Appeals certified to this court the following question: "Where a petition, seeking damages against the owner of property for injuries received when the plaintiff slipped and fell because of water on a waxed floor, alleges constructive knowledge on the part of the owner that water was standing on the waxed floor, and alleges further that this created an extremely slippery floor and was an imminently dangerous condition, but there is no specific allegation that the owner had knowledge that this created an extremely slippery floor and was an imminently dangerous condition, does the knowledge on the part of the owner that water was standing on the waxed floor, on general demurrer to the petition, demand an inference of such knowledge of the danger as to raise a duty to warn the plaintiff invitee thereof? Wright v. Hicks, 15 Ga. 160 (3); Bivins v. Tucker, 41 Ga. App. 771, 774 ( 154 S.E. 820); Scott v. Rich's Inc., 47 Ga. App. 548, 551 ( 171 S.E. 201); Burns v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 105 Ga. App. 823 ( 125 S.E.2d 687)."