Nunnally v. Shockley

There can be no question as to the soundness of the holding of the majority opinion that the landlord is not ordinarily required to inspect the premises the possession and control of which he has yielded to a tenant, and *771that in such circumstances, in the absence of proof that he was put on notice of such defect, he is not liable to an invitee of the tenant caused by the failure to repair. I also agree with my colleagues that, under authority of Dobbs v. Noble, 55 Ga. App. 201 (189 S. E. 694), the rule is applicable even to structural defects in a structure built by the landlord’s predecessor…