From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Shuman

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 2, 1975
218 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)



ARGUED JUNE 30, 1975.


Action for damages. Chatham Superior Court. Before Judge Harrison.

Joseph B. Bergen, for appellants.

Kennedy Sognier, John W. Sognier, John T. Woodall, Falligant, Karsman, Kent Toporek, Martin Kent, Charles C. Brooks, for appellees.

In these separate actions, tried and appealed together, by a husband and his wife for damages for injuries to the wife resulting from her slipping and falling on a rock in the parking lot of a beauty shop owned by one defendant and leased to the co-defendant, the trial judge did not err in granting summary judgments for both defendants upon a showing that the plaintiff wife parked on the nearly new parking lot around noon on a clear day; that she saw no debris on the parking lot as she entered the defendants' shop; that upon leaving the shop around 2 p. m., she observed several stones on the then nearly vacant parking area, yet slipped and fell on a quarter- or marble-sized, gray colored stone; that she had used this parking lot for about 5 months and had never seen any debris thereon before; and that there was no evidence that the defendants had any knowledge of the presence of the stones. See Butler v. Jones, 85 Ga. App. 158 (2) ( 68 S.E.2d 173) and cits.; Misenhamer v. Pharr, 99 Ga. App. 163 (2) ( 107 S.E.2d 875) and cits.; Angel v. The Varsity, Inc., 113 Ga. App. 507 ( 148 S.E.2d 451) and cits.; Avary v. Anderson, 31 Ga. App. 402 ( 120 S.E. 683); Roberts v. Wicker, 213 Ga. 352 ( 99 S.E.2d 84) and cits.

Judgments affirmed. Deen, P. J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs in the judgment only.


Summaries of

Smith v. Shuman

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 2, 1975
218 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

Smith v. Shuman

Case Details

Full title:SMITH et al. v. SHUMAN et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 2, 1975


218 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
218 S.E.2d 304

Citing Cases

Tolliver v. Hollingsworth

No negligence appears on the part of [appellee] and the grant of summary judgment was proper." Hammonds v.…

Pound v. Augusta National

. . would be likely to exist, and should have accordingly exercised ordinary care to avoid it. . . Her means…