Morrow v. Angkawijana, LLC
327 Ga. App. 1
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- June 20, 2007: Brandon Morrow killed in two-car collision at Crestridge Court/Crestridge Drive intersection; co-worker Williams made left turn and claimed a blind spot caused by roadway curve and shrubbery on private property.
- Property at SE corner of intersection (65 Crestridge Drive) owned by Angkawijana; leased by IMAEX; RCG contracted to maintain landscaping (including the shrubbery alleged to obstruct sight lines).
- Morrows sued (filed June 11, 2009) drivers and asserted negligence per se against Angkawijana and IMAEX under OCGA § 32-6-51(b)(3); added RCG as defendant by amended complaint in November 2010.
- Plaintiffs alleged the shrubbery created a traffic hazard and was "unauthorized" because it obstructed sight lines, relying on Gwinnett County development regulations and AASHTO guidelines to show lack of governmental authorization.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; trial court granted summary judgment for Angkawijana, IMAEX, and RCG. The court also granted RCG’s statute-of-limitations dismissal (which the appellate court did not reach after affirming on other grounds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of governmental authorization is an element of an OCGA § 32-6-51(b)(3) claim | Morrows contended authorization is not required; only hazard must be shown | Defendants argued plaintiffs must prove lack of governmental authorization per Fortner | Held: Lack of governmental authorization is an element; plaintiffs must prove it (Fortner controls) |
| Whether shrubbery is unauthorized merely because it obstructed sight lines | Morrows argued obstruction alone made landscaping unauthorized | Defendants said obstruction alone insufficient; need proof of lack of governmental authorization | Held: Obstruction alone is insufficient; plaintiffs needed more to show lack of authorization |
| Whether Gwinnett County regulations or AASHTO guidelines showed lack of authorization/applicability | Morrows relied on county regs and AASHTO to prove lack of authorization and sight-distance violation | Defendants noted plaintiffs failed to introduce certified regulations/guidelines into evidence and disputed applicable sight-distance standard | Held: Plaintiffs failed to properly prove or authenticate county regulations or AASHTO guidelines; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs preserved alternative theories (common law negligence) | Morrows attempted to assert common-law negligence on appeal | Defendants argued issues not raised below can’t be considered | Held: Court would not consider new theories raised first on appeal; common-law claim not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortner v. Town of Register, 278 Ga. 625 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (maintenance of vegetation may constitute an unauthorized "structure" under OCGA § 32-6-51(b); lack of governmental authorization is an element of liability)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (parties must present their best case on summary judgment; plaintiffs must produce viable theory of recovery)
- Thorsen v. Saber, 288 Ga. 18 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (municipal or county ordinances/regulations must be alleged and proved; judicial notice not appropriate without certified copies)
- Howell v. Willis, 317 Ga. App. 199 (Ct. App. Ga.) (expert testimony alone insufficient to establish contents of codes/standards absent authenticated copies)