333 Ga. App. 507
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Dec. 30, 2008, Raymond Jones backed a tractor from his yard onto a public road after looking both ways and seeing no oncoming traffic.
- Harry Holland pulled his pickup from his driveway (about 300 yards away), driving approximately 22–25 mph and became blinded by sun glare while approaching Jones’s driveway.
- Holland did not see the tractor and struck it, throwing Jones from the tractor; Holland testified he could not see the road while blinded and did not know how long he continued driving in that condition.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Holland, finding no evidence of his negligence; Jones appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record construing facts for the nonmoving party and found genuine issues of material fact as to Holland’s negligence, reversing the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Holland negligent in hitting the tractor? | Holland drove while blinded by sun and failed to slow or stop. | Holland was within speed limit and collision was caused by Jones entering roadway. | Reversed summary judgment; jury could find Holland breached duty to keep a proper lookout and slow when blinded. |
| Did Jones violate duty when entering roadway under OCGA § 40-6-73? | Jones looked both ways and could not see Holland; he lawfully entered. | Jones should have yielded to approaching traffic. | Statute imposes no duty to yield to vehicles not visible to the entering driver; fact question for jury. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate? | Deny: plaintiff need only raise genuine factual disputes. | Grant: trial court concluded nonexistence of liability was plain. | Summary judgment improper because reasonable minds could differ; factual disputes exist. |
| Did sun glare excuse continued driving without slowing? | Driver must exercise care when blinded and keep a diligent lookout; continuing to drive while blinded may be negligent. | Temporary or sudden blindness can excuse immediate avoidance if driver lacked time to react. | Jury could find Holland negligently continued while blinded; whether time to stop existed is a factual question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74 (addresses summary judgment standard in favor of nonmovant)
- Georgia Dept. of Human Resources v. Bulbalia, 303 Ga. App. 659 (negligence questions are generally for the jury)
- Harrison v. Ellis, 199 Ga. App. 199 (no duty to yield to approaching vehicles not visible to entering driver)
- Sprayberry v. Snow, 59 Ga. App. 744 (driver blinded by sun must exercise increased care)
- Brown v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 96 Ga. App. 771 (driver required to exercise care after being blinded and may be negligent if continuing to drive a distance without stopping)
- Stanfield v. Smith, 152 Ga. App. 22 (questions of fact where sun caused temporary blindness)
- Eatmon v. Weeks, 323 Ga. App. 578 (duty to keep proper lookout)
- Young v. Kitchens, 228 Ga. App. 870 (reversal where jury could find defendant failed to maintain diligent lookout)