Court Opinion

ID: 9616159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:43:58.439957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:55.744109
License: Public Domain

Townsend, J.,
concurring specially. Where the petition alleges facts sufficient to show that the defendant is maintaining on his premises a nuisance attractive to children, this constitutes an implied invitation to children to come on the premises, and the defendant owes them the duty of ordinary care, owing to invitees generally. Code, § 105-401. Under the authority of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Corbett, 150 Ga. 747, the facts here are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff was in invitee, or to *30show negligence on the part of the defendant. The petition does not allege that the bulldozer pan fell through any negligence of the defendant, or that he had knowledge that it was precariously balanced and would fall easily.
The duty which the defendant in this case owed the plaintiff is that which the owner or occupier of premises owes a licensee. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. O’Neal, 180 Ga. 153, 156, where it was said: “An owner owes to a licensee no duty as to- the condition of the premises, unless imposed by statute, save that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril or wilfully cause him harm.” In Savannah, Fla. &c. Ry. Co. v. Beavers, 113 Ga. 398, it was held that, once the law imposes a given duty upon the owner or occupier of premises, the degree of care to be exercised in the performance of that duty may be greater toward a child than toward an adult, but the mere fact that the injured party is a child does not itself raise the duty on the part of the owner where such duty would not otherwise exist.
This case is not controlled by Clinton v. Gunn-Willis Lumber Co., 77 Ga. App. 643 (49 S. E. 2d, 143), because there it was held that the high voltage of electricity contained in the exposed wire was an active force maintained by one of the defendants on the premises of the other defendant, whereas the pan attached to the bulldozer in this case was a statical object. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. O’Neal, supra. Personally, I do not agree with the principles of law laid down by our Supreme Court in the O’Neal case and Savannah, Fla. &c. Ry. Co. v. Beavers, supra, and in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Corbett, 150 Ga. 747. I think that, when an owner or occupier of premises sees a child of tender years playing thereon in such manner as may reasonably be concluded to be likely to cause injury, the duty should arise to warn him of the injury. I also think that the velocipede in the Corbett case should have been held to be an attractive nuisance, and that the logs and crossties in the O’Neal case should have been held to constitute a mantrap. But for those decisions this court would be free to hold that the petition here sets forth a cause of action. However, those decisions of our Supreme Court are binding on this court, and for these reasons I must concur in the opinion.