Hall v. Massally
329 Ga. App. 136
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Massally moved for summary judgment after depositions were filed and after counsel withdrew; the court granted summary judgment.
- Halls, pro se at times, sought extension and filed a late response with a witness affidavit challenging Massally’s account.
- Trial court refused to consider the late affidavit; lay facts about Massally’s driving and collision were disputed.
- Halls argued deposition testimony created genuine issues of material fact regarding Massally’s speed and conduct.
- Trial court noted the dispute appeared to concern whether the collision was rear-end or side-impact and who moved into which lane.
- Appellate court holds there are genuine issues of material fact warranting reversal of the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. | Halls contend facts show liability questions for a jury. | Massally contends no admissible evidence showing fault; movant entitled to judgment. | Reversed; issues of fact exist for jury. |
| Whether remaining enumerations are moot. | Mootness should not bar consideration of merits. | No live issues remain after reversal on the main issue. | Moot; remaining enumerations are not necessary to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clo White Co. v. Lattimore, 263 Ga. App. 839 (2003) (de novo review standard for summary judgments)
- Neely v. Jones, 264 Ga. App. 795 (2003) (no automatic default summary judgment; responsive filing required)
- Crown Ford v. Crawford, 221 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (no such thing as default summary judgment; must show no material fact)
- McGivern v. First Capital Income Properties, 188 Ga. App. 716 (1988) (failure to respond does not automatically grant judgment)