For other litigation involving the same occurrence, see
Armburst v. Cox Broadcasting Corp.,
In the posture of the cases now on appeal it must appear that the defendants, as the movants for summary judgment in the lower court, have eliminated adversely to each of the plaintiffs, some issue for jury determination which is essential to recovery.
Standard Oil Co. v. State Neon Co.,
While the theory of recovery as alleged in each of the petitions is that of ordinary negligence by the defendants as the proximate cause of injury, and while issues of negligence and proximate cause are ordinarily matters for jury determination, and therefore incapable of resolution as a matter of law on motion for summary judgment, the pleadings and evidence on the motions for summary judgment conclusively show that the plaintiffs are entitled to a status no greater than that afforded licensees, for
*778
they made use of the ladder and scaffolding merely for their own interest, convenience, and gratification and completely without the knowledge or consent of the defendants. See
Code
§ 105-402. In this status the liability of the defendants is limited to wilful or wanton injury, and the pleadings and evidence clearly negate any wilful or wanton acts on the part of these defendants as the cause of injury to the plaintiffs. See
Washington v. Trend Mills,
In our opinion the trial judge erred in refusing to grant summary judgments in favor of Mion Construction Company and Atlanta Federal Savings & Loan Association.
Judgments reversed.
