Georgia Department of Transportation v. Owens, 330 Ga. App. 123

Owens estate and others sue CW Matthews and GDOT for negligence and wrongful death from a collision at a GDOT project on I-75/85 in Atlanta; Owens killed, Montgomery and Thibodaux injured.
CW Matthews appeals denials of summary judgment and motions to exclude expert testimony; GDOT appeals denials of its sovereign immunity dismissal and motions to exclude expert testimony.
Trial court held proximate causation questions for jury; held GDOT not immune on all claims; allowed some expert testimony to stand; denied CW Matthews’ broad summary judgment on proximate causation.
Traffic control involved a lane closure on the right shoulder and two right lanes; plan referenced MUTCD and GDOT contract Section 150 and Standard 9106; lane closure modifications and sign deployment were contested.
Evidence addressed human factors and accident reconstruction experts ( Hunt and Kidd ) and whether their opinions should be excluded; contract provisions and GTCA exceptions (design/plan, licensing/approval, and inspection) were central to GDOT immunity analysis.
Court outcomes: A14A1487 - proximate causation remains a fact issue; A14A1486 - partial reversal/affirmation on sovereign immunity and on-site inspection issues; expert testimony rulings largely affirmed with Hunt’s insufficient-signs opinion remanded for consistency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is proximate causation a jury question precluding summary judgment?	Owens argues CW Matthews foreseeability and negligence caused the collision.	CW Matthews contends Owens’ own conduct was sole proximate cause.	Proximate cause is a fact issue; summary judgment denied.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting/excluding Hunt and Kidd as experts?	Hunt and Kidd are qualified and their opinions assist the jury.	Hunt’s and Kidd’s opinions are unreliable or outside proper scope.	Court affirmed in part; vacated as to Hunt’s ‘signs inadequate’ opinion and remanded; denied exclusion of Kidd’s key opinions.
Does GDOT enjoy sovereign immunity under GTCA for traffic control design/approval and on-site inspections?	GDOT’s actions in traffic control planning and site supervision caused/failed to prevent harm.	GDOT immune for design/plan approvals and on-site inspections under GTCA exceptions.	GDOT immune for site-specific traffic control plan approval and on-site inspection; design/plan exception preserved; inspection exception applied.
Does the nonnegligent government contractor defense bar recovery for traffic-control design claims?	CW Matthews cannot rely on a defense to shield it from liability.	Defense applies to claims arising from performance of state-approved traffic control.	Not fully resolved on appeal; CW Matthews’ potential broad reliance rejected; issues deemed not properly raised on appeal.

Benton v. Benton, 280 Ga. 468 (Ga. Sup. Ct. 2006) (de novo review standard for summary judgment appeals; not directly about proximate cause but governs standard of review)
Reed v. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., 327 Ga. App. 130 (Ga. App. 2014) (proximate cause defined; causation in fact key)
Ontario Sewing Machine Co. v. Smith, 275 Ga. 683 (Ga. 1943) (foreseeability and proximate cause principles for intervening acts)
Hayes v. Crawford, 317 Ga. App. 75 (Ga. App. 2012) (negligence questions and proximate cause for jury determination)
Smith v. Commercial Transport, 220 Ga. App. 866 (Ga. App. 1996) (intervening causes and foreseeability in proximate cause analysis)
Fraker v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co., 272 Ga. App. 807 (Ga. App. 2005) (nonnegligent government contractor defense context)
Hubbard v. Dept. of Transp., 256 Ga. App. 342 (Ga. App. 2002) (immunity/GTCA discussion relevant to implementation duties)
Dept. of Transp. v. Kovalcik, 328 Ga. App. 185 (Ga. App. 2014) (pre-construction plan approval immunity under GTCA)
Jarvie v. Dept. of Transp., 329 Ga. App. 681 (Ga. App. 2014) (inspections exception applied to GDOT oversight on interstate project)