“There is scarcely any material that might be used in 19 construction that isn’t made somewhat slippery by the presence of water. This is a matter 20 of common knowledge, and, since it is, it behooves us all [to] use a measure of protection 21 in walking upon wet surfaces.”
How later courts described this case
- “There is scarcely any material that might be used in 19 construction that isn’t made somewhat slippery by the presence of water. This is a matter 20 of common knowledge, and, since it is, it behooves us all [to] use a measure of protection 21 in walking upon wet surfaces.”
- affirming judgment against plaintiff who slipped on wet tile at store entrance
- “The mere ownership of land or buildings does not render one liable for injuries sustained by persons who have entered thereon or therein; the owner is not an insurer of such persons, even when he has invited them to enter.”
- water accumulation inside entranceway where shoppers came and went in rainy weather
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by Raborn v. Richmond County Hospital Authority, 134 Ga. App. 153 (1975)
For this reason we must decline to apply here cases cited by the appellee, including Wade v. Roberts, 118 Ga. App. 284 (163 SE2d 343); Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 110 Ga. App. 170 (138 SE2d 77); Smith v. Bel-Arbor, 121 Ga. App. 739 (175 SE2d 146), McGeeney v. Robertson, 102 Ga. App. 318 (116 SE2d 252) and others.
The opinion
Hall, Judge,
concurring specially. I concur with Division 1 of the opinion of the court, for the reason that the petition does not show that the material of which the defendant’s floor was made had the propensity to become excessively slippery when wet, as compared to floors customarily found in business premises.
I concur with the result reached but do not agree with all that is said in Divisions 2 and 3 of the opinion of the court. I agree that the allegations of the petition do not create an issue that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the described floor under the prevailing weather conditions—a business proprietor cannot reasonably be expected to prevent the presence of some water on a normal floor during a period of time when it is continually raining, unless by the presence of the water the proprietor exposes his invitees to an unreasonable risk of harm.
The controlling question in this case is whether the petition alleges facts which if supported by evidence could authorize a finding that the defendant was negligent. Whether the facts alleged show as a matter of law that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety is an issue that the court cannot reach unless it has first determined that the petition shows an *181 issue of negligence on the part of the defendant. My views of the law pertaining to questions of negligence by invitees are discussed in Kreiss v. Allatoona Landing, Inc., 108 Ga. App. 427, 439 ( 133 SE2d 602 ).