1. Where the evidence adduced on the trial of the case showed that the plaintiff, who had gone upon the defendant's premises at the invitation and request of an agent of the defendant to take pictures of certain defective construction thereon, and while so engaged in broad open daylight and while endeavoring to focus his camera on an object which he desired to photograph, stepped backward into an excavation some 15 or 18 feet deep, which was adjacent to a wall erected therein, which excavation was some five or ten feet wide at the top when measured from the edge of the embankment thereof to the line of the wall, and some two feet wide at the bottom, and which was plainly visible to the plaintiff had he looked, such evidence demanded a verdict for the defendant, since the plaintiff could, by the exercise of ordinary care on his part, have avoided any negligence on the part of the defendant in maintaining such excavation on its premises, and the trial court did not err in granting a proper and timely motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in entering judgment for the defendant after the jury had returned a verdict for the plaintiff. National Bellas-Hess Co. v. Patrick, 49 Ga. App. 280 (1)
(175 S. E. 255); Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 70 Ga. App. 390
(28 S. E. 2d 322); Lane Drug Stores, Inc. v. Story, 72 Ga. App. 886
(35 S. E. 2d 472); Banks v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, 79 Ga. App. 313
(53 S. E. 2d 595); Bessman v. Greyhound Bus Depot of Atlanta, Inc., 81 Ga. App. 428
(58 S. E. 2d 922); Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention v. Wardlaw, 180 Ga. 148
(178 S. E. 155) (reversing 47 Ga. App. 595
3. The trial court did not err in granting the judgment n. o. v. for the defendant.
Young, Hollis & Moseley, Howell Hollis, contra.