Stanfield v. Forrest Five to Five Dollar Stores
STANFIELD v. FORREST FIVE TO FIVE DOLLAR STORES (Two Cases)
Opinion
Felton, C. J.
This is not a clear and indisputable case that can be resolved as a matter of law. The object which caused the plaintiff to fall was not so bulky or so generally expected to be in the place where she was injured. The plaintiff alleged that the object was concealed because of poor lighting and that her attention was partially diverted by the wares displayed on the counter. The law is well settled that under such circumstances, the case is one for a jury’s determination.
Harris v. Mayes, 94
505 (2) ( 95 S. E. 2d 26 );
Miller v. Bart, 90
755 ( 84 S. E. 2d 127 );
Glover v. City Council of Augusta, 83
314 ( 63 S. E. 2d 422 );
Mason v. Frankel, 49
145 (2) ( 174 S. E. 546 );
King Hardware Co.
v. Teplis, 91
13 ( 84 S. E. 2d 686 );
Atlanta Enterprises, Inc.
v. Douglass, 93
237 ( 91 S. E. 2d 296 ).
The court erred in sustaining the general demurrers and in dismissing the actions.
Judgments reversed.
Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.