Avary v. Anderson
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
It appears from the petition that the plaintiff could see and did see the general condition of the bathroom, and was thereby tvarned. She only alleges that she did not see the greasy sub¡stance at the particular spot where she fell. The inference is demanded that she saw that a “greasy substance” was on the general floor, and that the “floor” was “thereby rendered unsafe.” See italics in the statement of facts. To allege that she did not see and had no means of seeing or of knowing that the greasy substance was at the particular place is not equivalent to…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hendricks v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
- Lebby v. Atlanta Realty Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1920
- Banks v. Schofield's Sons Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Day & Co. v. GraybillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Biederman v. Montezuma Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Chotas v. J. P. Allen & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Glover v. City Council of AugustaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
- Hill v. Davison-Paxon Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Misenhamer v. PharrCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.