Black brought this action against Georgia Southern & Flоrida Railway Company (the railway) and Wynne for injuries he suffered when his automobile collided at an intersection with a car driven by Wynne. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the railwаy and Black appeals.
Black claims that the accident was proximately caused by Wynne’s negligence in combination with the negligent failure of the railway to propеrly maintain its crossing signal at the intersection. The record, as viewed in favor of the non-moving party, reflects that Wynne was traveling in a line of cars on Watson Boulevard approaching its intersection with Highway 247 in Warner Robins. The railway’s tracks ran parallel to Highway 247. The cars approaching the *806 intersection on Watson Blvd. from Wynne’s direction were required tо cross the tracks, and then proceed approximately two car lengths before encountering the city traffic light facing Watson Blvd. At the time of the accident, which ocсurred on a clear day at about noon, the railway’s automatic crossing signal was malfunctioning causing the crossing bars to go up and down every few minutes. There was no train apрroaching on the tracks. The malfunctioning signals had caused traffic to back up on Watson Blvd. as cars approaching the intersection would either drive around the lowerеd bars or wait until they raised to proceed. Wynne crossed the tracks when the bars were in the up position, and proceeding two car lengths, stopped her car at the trаffic light. She testified on deposition that the crossing bars were behind her at that point, and had no further effect on her driving. Wynne further deposed that, as she approached the intеrsection, the city traffic light facing her was also malfunctioning, and was either continuously red or completely off. Wynne testified the cars approaching on Highway 247 had the right-of-way at that point, and she treated the intersection as if she was at a stop sign. As the cars preceding her had done, Wynne came to a complete stop at the intersection, and ignoring the malfunctioning traffic light, looked both ways with an unobstructed view, saw no cars coming on Highway 247, and drove into the intersection. Immediately upon pulling into the intersectiоn Wynne collided with Black, who deposed that he was traveling on Highway 247 under a green traffic light at the intersection. The record shows that the city traffic light was coordinated with the railway’s crossing signal. Every time the automatic crossing signal was activated, the traffic light would be triggered to run through its sequence of colors, and remain red facing Watson Blvd. as long as the crossing bars were down. The uncontroverted affidavit of the railway’s signal supervisor indicated that the malfunction of the crossing signal could not have caused the city traffic light to freezе on one color or go out altogether.
1. The gravamen of Black’s complaint against the railway is that the negligently maintained and malfunctioning crossing signal created a hazardous traffic condition which, combined with Wynne’s negligence, proximately caused the accident. In order to state a cause of action for negligence it is necеssary to establish the essential elements of duty, breach of that duty, and proximate cause which amounts to a legally sufficient causal connection between the conduсt alleged and the resulting injury.
Robertson v. MARTA,
Although the malfunctioning crossing signal may have been a cause in fact of the accident under the theory that but for the conditions created by the malfunction the аccident would not have happened, this does not constitute a determination that the railway’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.
McAuley v. Wills,
“It is well settled that there can be no proximate cause where there has intervened between the act of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff, an independent, intervening, act of someone other than the defendant, which was not foreseeable by defendаnt, was not triggered by defendant’s acts, and which was sufficient of itself to cause the injury.” (Quotations and citations omitted.)
Jones v. Central of Ga. R. Co.,
After having crossed the railroad tracks, and with the malfunctioning crossing bars safely behind her, Wynne came to a complete stop at the intersection aware thаt the traffic light was not functioning, and mindful that cars approaching on Highway 247 had the
*808
right-of-way under the existing conditions. In these circumstances, the negligence of the railway did no more than furnish conditions or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, and under which Wynne took actions which intervened as the preponderating cause of the aсcident.
Wanless v. Winner’s Corp.,
As Wynne pulled into the intersection and collided with Black, she was not confronted with conditions to which her response could be deemed normal or foreseeable. Although the conditions made the process of crossing the intersection less convenient than it would have been with a prоperly functioning crossing signal and traffic light, the degree of care required was no greater than that demanded of drivers entering an intersection from a stop sign. No hazard or cоndition of emergency was created by the railway which prevented Wynne, by the exercise of ordinary care, from safely traversing the intersection.
Blanchard v. Posey,
Since no conditions created by the railway prevented safe passage through the intersection by the exercise of ordinary care, we find the intervening actions of Wynne sevеred any legally sufficient causal connection between the negligence of the railway and the collision with Black.
2. Black also claims that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment without opening or considering the depositions of four witnesses in the case. “If a trial court indicates in his order granting a motion for summary judgment that the motion is being granted after a reviеw of the record, this court will not hold that he failed to review the relevant portions of a deposition simply because the original of the deposition on file in the case remained sealed and was not opened until after the order granting the motion was entered.”
General Motors Corp. v. Walker,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
In determining that the railway is not liable for the accident, we make no determination as to liability between Wynne and Black.