TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bonner v. Barnes

Bonner v. Barnes, 119 S.E.2d 138 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 21, 1961
Docket
No. 38635
Judges
Felton
Citations
119 S.E.2d 138103 Ga. App. 3641961 Ga. App. LEXIS 940

Opinion of the Court — Felton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Felton, Chief Judge.

It does not seem to us that the maintenance of an air-conditioning unit which extends approximately two1 feet from the side of a building, even at head level, constitutes negligence on the part of the defendant. The presence of such equipment on the side of the building can easily be anticipated and thus distinguishes this case from the “public thoroughfare” cases relied on by the plaintiff. “Where a petition does not show the risk of unreasonable danger and does not show that the defendant could reasonably have foreseen danger to an invitee on his property, the trial court did *365 not err in sustaining the general demurrer.” McHugh v. Trust Co. of Ga., 102 Ga. App. 412 ( 116 S. E. 2d 512 ). The utility of the defendants’ act in placing an air conditioner in the premises for the comfort of customers far outweighs, under these circumstances, the likelihood of possible danger to invitees. “Negligence is bottomed on the anticipation of unreasonable risk which outweighs the utility of the defendants’ conduct.” Ely v. Barbizon Towers, 101 Ga. App. 872 ( 115 S. E. 2d 616 ). Moreover, the petition shows on its face that the plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety in walking hurriedly, head down, less than two feet from the side of a building. Also, if the air conditioner extended so close to or over the cement strip, the difficulty or danger, if there was any, in driving the automobile past it should have put the plaintiff sufficiently on notice of its presence. “If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover.” Code § 105-603.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 21966: 119652026peak 1965 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chotas v. J. P. Allen & Co.149 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Sanders v. Jefferson Furniture Co.140 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
  3. Archer Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Dodys145 S.E.2d 277 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Chotas v. J. P. Allen & Co.149 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Archer Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Dodys145 S.E.2d 277 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
  3. Sanders v. Jefferson Furniture Co.140 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Ely v. Barbizon Towers, Inc., 115 S.E.2d 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960) 20
McHugh v. Trust Co. of Ga., 116 S.E.2d 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list