Venable v. Langford
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Judge.
1. The attractive nuisance or turnable doctrine comprehends only instrumentalities inherently dangerous, as well as attractive to the finder, such as weapons, explosives, turnables, or objects of that type which are not commonplace. The doctrine will not be extended to cases which on their facts do not come fully within this definition. Southern Bell Tel. &c. Co. v. Brackin, 215 Ga. 225 (3) (109 SE2d 782); Starland Dairies, Inc. v. Evans, 105 Ga. App. 813 (1b) (125 SE2d 682) and cit. Further: “The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to ponds or other water hazards.”…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mandeville Mills v. DaleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Coffer v. BradshawCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Augusta Amusements, Inc. v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
- Anderson v. CooperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1958
- Cooper v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Montega Corp. v. GroomsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Howard v. Gram Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2004
- MURRAY BISCUIT COMPANY, INC. v. HuttoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Bronesky v. Estech, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Howard v. Gram Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.