323 Ga. App. 578
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- On June 29, 2010 Eatmon drove in the left northbound lane toward Albany when Weeks veered across the turning lane and struck Eatmon.
- Eatmon sustained a broken leg and other injuries; Weeks suffered a head wound and later died after a stroke.
- Eatmon sued Weeks’s estate for negligence; Weeks’s estate counterclaimed for negligence.
- The trial court denied cross-motions for summary judgment; the parties sought interlocutory review.
- The appellate court reversed the denial of summary judgment in both cases, finding no evidence of fault by Eatmon or Weeks.
- The opinion applies summary-judgment principles and analyzes whether Eatmon or Weeks was negligent or whether an act-of-God defense applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Eatmon negligent under the duty to keep a lookout? | Eatmon had no opportunity to avoid Weeks’s truck. | Eatmon could have acted negligently despite Weeks’s intrusion. | Eatmon was not negligent; no breach of duty shown. |
| Does Weeks's estate have an act-of-God defense based on illness? | Estate cannot justify accident via illness; Weeks was negligent. | Unforeseeable medical event caused loss of control; act of God applies. | Yes; act-of-God defense supported; evidence shows loss of consciousness precluded control. |
| Was Weeks's loss of consciousness foreseeable, and can it negate liability? | Weeks could have foreseen a risk; should be liable if negligent. | Weeks’s stroke was unforeseen and not predictable; defendant not liable. | Loss of consciousness was unforeseen; no genuine issue for trial. |
| Did Eatmon rebut the act-of-God defense with specific facts to create a trial issue? | Eatmon argues evidence contradicts the act-of-God defense. | Proponent bears burden to rebut; no facts raise triable issue. | Eatmon failed to raise a genuine issue; summary judgment for estate affirmed on this point. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate under OCGA § 9-11-56 standard? | There are factual disputes precluding summary judgment. | There is an absence of evidence supporting plaintiff’s case; summary judgment appropriate. | The movant established lack of triable issues; trial court erred in denying summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKissick v. Giroux, 272 Ga. App. 499 (2005) (duty of ordinary care and lookout; no negligence where no evasive action possible)
- Hayes v. Crawford, 317 Ga. App. 75 (2012) (driver must keep lookout; duty to act reasonably to avoid collision)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991) (burden-sh shifting on summary judgment; plaintiff must show triable issue)
- Johnson v. Ellis, 179 Ga. App. 343 (1986) (presumption of non-negligence; cannot presume negligence from silence)
- Lewis v. Smith, 238 Ga. App. 6 (1999) (unforeseeable illness causing loss of consciousness can be act of God)
- Halligan v. Broun, 285 Ga. App. 226 (2007) (estate bears burden to rebut act-of-God defense with specific facts)