Reed v. Carolina Casualty Insurance
327 Ga. App. 130
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Georgia law bars damages if plaintiff is 50%+ at fault (OCGA § 51-12-33 (g)) in a wrongful death action, and summary judgment was granted below on that basis.
- The accident involved a tractor-trailer parked in an emergency lane by Rimantas Labeika and a speeding, intoxicated Reed who collided with the trailer and guardrail, causing a fire and Reed’s death.
- Decedents’ estates sued Labeika and the trailer owner; the trial court concluded Reed was at least 50% at fault as a matter of law and granted summary judgment.
- The trial court relied on undisputed facts to find no triable issue regarding Reed’s fault, and thus barred recovery.
- Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment, arguing the issue of comparative fault and causation should go to a jury.
- This Court reversed, holding there were factual questions for the jury on causation and the degree of Reed’s fault, under OCGA § 51-12-33 (g) and related case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could grant summary judgment on fault apportionment at all | Reed | ||
| was not conclusively at 50% fault; issues must go to jury | § 51-12-33 (g) permits summary judgment when truly undisputed | No; issues of fault were not plain and indisputable; jury must decide | |
| Whether Reed was 50%+ at fault as a matter of law | Record shows factual questions about causation and fault | Record shows Reed violated traffic laws and drove in unsafe conditions; possible 50%+ fault | Facts material to fault disputed; jury must determine proportion of fault |
| Whether proximate causation and cause-in-fact issues were proper for jury | There was a factual link between Labeika’s parking and Reed’s death | Intervening acts and foreseeability could break chain; but issues remain factual | Yes, jury must decide causation and effect of Labeika’s action |
| Whether the avoidable-consequences doctrine barred recovery | Reed could not have avoided consequences of defendant’s negligence | Reed could have exercised ordinary care; issue for jury | Not a summary-judgment bar; jury should decide applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- Storer Communications v. Burns, 195 Ga. App. 230 (1990) (foreseeability in emergency-lane parking; issues for jury)
- Reid v. Midwest Transp., 270 Ga. App. 557 (2004) (emergency-assistance scenario; different outcome on liability)
- Dickerson v. Guest Svcs. Co. of Va., 282 Ga. 771 (2007) (negligence not usually subject to summary adjudication)