Court Opinion

ID: 9582683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:30:17.574694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:13.965564
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Presiding Judge,
dissenting. The plaintiff alleges as acts of negligence: “16. The defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that said shower and bathtub were unsafe for use by their paying guests. 17. The defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the water was too hot and that the pressure and flow of the water was uneven, and that the bathing facilities provided were not safe for use by guests. 18. The defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the temperature of the water was too high for bathing, and the failure on the part of the defendant to repair or replace the defective plumbing apparatus when it was discovered, or would have been discovered by ordinary care and diligence, constitutes ordinary negligence and is a violation of Section 105-401 of the Code of Georgia. 19. The defendants were further negligent in the following particulars: (a) In failing to provide safe and suitable facilities for plaintiff, a paying guest, of the defendants; (b) In failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and unsafe condition of the bathroom facilities in Room 541. (c) In failing to keep the bathtub herein referred to in a safe condition, (d) In failing to repair or replace the defective plumbing apparatus when it was discovered, or could have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence; and (e) In failing to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition for the use of their patrons.” These allegations are based on allegations that the plaintiff was a registered guest at the hotel, that he removed his clothing to take a shower, that “Plaintiff adjusted the hot and cold water faucets controlling the shower, tested the *169water and entered the bathtub. Plaintiff had completed his bath, and was in the process of rinsing himself when suddenly and without warning, the water became extremely hot and scalded plaintiff causing him to jump away from the flow of water suddenly. Plaintiff slipped. . .”
The allegations with reference to the water being too hot show no actionable negligence, for the petitioner shows elsewhere that the temperature of such water was adjustable. “Plaintiff adjusted the hot and cold water faucets controlling the shower, tested the water, and entered the bathtub.”
“The demurrer admits only the facts, and not the legal conclusions drawn therefrom by the pleader. Lee v. Atlanta, 197 Ga. 518 (29 SE2d 774).” Thornton v. Hardin, 205 Ga. 215, 218 (52 SE2d 841). Therefore, unless the allegations that “the pressure and flow of water were uneven” were sufficient to charge the defendant with negligence the petition failed to set forth a cause of action since the remaining allegations of negligence are no more than legal conclusions based upon the specific facts alleged.
The plaintiff alleged that the flow of water was uneven, but it is nowhere alleged that the uneven water pressure was the fault of the plumbing system, and an examination of the allegations of paragraph 18, quoted above, show that the allegations with reference to the defective plumbing system deal with temperature of the water and not the uneven water pressure. There is no allegation in the petition showing that the defendant had any control over the flow of water, or that any negligence on its part caused the flow of water to be uneven. While to overcome an attack by general demurrer it is only necessary to show the existence of a duty owing to the plaintiff by the defendant, a violation of that duty by the defendant and an injury resulting to the plaintiff proximately caused by such breach, yet mere allegations that the plaintiff was injured by a result, the origin of which may or may not have been chargeable to the defendant, is not sufficient to withstand general demurrer, for under such circumstances the petition will be construed against the plaintiff, and it will be assumed that the end result was created by the cause not chargeable to the defendant. While the uneven water *170pressure could be caused by some negligence on the part of the defendant, it could also be caused by a source not chargeable to the defendant, e. g. a leak or break in the water main before it reached the defendant’s premises, etc. The judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant’s general demurrer should be reversed.
I am authorized to say that Russell and Panned, JJ., concur in this dissent.