Legal Opinion
Sarno v. Hoffman
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided July 15, 1964No. 40546PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Judge.
Where the facts show a relationship, such as that between innkeeper and guest, from which a duty to know the conditions of the premises and facilities arises, then a general averment that the defendant knew or should have known of the defects from which injury resulted is sufficient. Hillinghorst v. Heart of Atlanta Motel, 104 Ga. App. 731 (1) (122 SE2d 751). The duty of an innkeeper is to use ordinary care and diligence to furnish the guest with reasonably safe accommodations. Hotel Richmond v. Wilkinson, 73 Ga. App. 36 (35 SE2d 536). This duty extends to appliances, and where it…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Fulton Ice & Coal Co. v. PeceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Hudgins v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Georgia Power Co. v. LeonardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Thomas v. BarnettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Rome Railway & Light Co. v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Coppedge v. Columbus, GeorgiaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Dean v. Gainesville Stone Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Georgia Power Co. v. RabunCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Crane v. DoolittleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Black v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.