Summary Judgment. The undisputed facts show that on October 28, 1980 at approximately 1:00 a.m. in Effingham County, Fort was driving his pickup truck north on Georgia Highway 17. Approaching Fort’s vehicle from the north and proceeding south was a Pontiac operated by the deceased Boyd. Evidence (by affidavit) was offered and not contradicted that Fort was proceeding on his side of the highway, in a normal, prudent manner within the speed limit. No evidence was forthcoming as to the speed of Boyd’s vehiclе but it was established that Boyd was intoxicated. Fort and his passenger (by affidavit) stated that as the cars neared each other Boyd’s vehicle veered from the southbound lane across the сenter line into the northbound lane occupied by Fort’s vehicle. Though Fort drove to the far right side of his lane to avoid a collision, Boyd continued on into the northbound lane and the left front of Boyd’s vehicle collided with the left front of Fort’s vehicle at a point indicating Fort was driving off the right side of the northbound lane.
Fort and his passenger were both injured and were removed from the scene by ambulance. Boyd was trapped in his vehicle and died at the scene. A Georgia Highway Patrolman investigated the accident and verified the above stated factual occurrences. The patrolman rendered an expert opinion that the accident was caused by Boyd, while intoxicated, driving across the center lane and striking the Fort vehicle, without fault by Fort. Nеvel Boone as next of kin and administrator brought suit for wrongful death. No affidavits (or other evidencе) were offered by Boone except by way of conclusory allegation in the complaint that Fort was guilty of negligence and wilful, wanton conduct by operating his car in (an undefined) reсkless, careless, and negligent manner causing Boyd to cross over into Fort’s lane, colliding with Fort in an attempt to avoid the collision. Fort and his insurer, Hartford Insurance Co., moved the *291 trial court for summary judgment. There was no evidence showing lack of negligence on the part of Boyd and thеre was no factual establishment of probable negligence on the part of Fort; nevertheless, the trial court denied Fort and his insurer summary judgment but issued a certificate of immediate review. This court granted the motion for interlocutory appeal filed by Fort and the insurer. The sole enumeration of error is the denial of the summary judgment. Held:
The burden is on the party who moves for summary judgment tо produce evidence which conclusively negates the essential elements entitling the rеspondent to recover under any theory that may he drawn fairly from the pleadings and the evidence.
Raven v. Dodd’s Auto Sales & Svc.,
Where the movant has pierced the allegations of the pleadings and shown the truth to the court, he may receive a grant of summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of materiаl fact considering the pleadings and available evidence.
Holland v. Sanfax Corp.,
There is no duty placed uрon the plaintiff to produce evidence until the defendant’s evidence pierces thе plaintiffs pleadings and demands a finding in defendant’s favor on the particular issue of fact made by the pleadings. If the non-existence of any genuine issue of material fact is established by such сredible evidence that on the facts and law the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of lаw, the motion should be granted, unless the respondent shows good reason why he is at the time of the hеaring unable to present facts in opposition to the motion.
Meade v. Heimanson,
Once Fort carried his burden tо show the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to the cause of the accidеnt, Boone was required to offer refuting evidence. Boone could not rely upon the merе conclusory statements in his pleadings.
Crutcher v. Crawford Land Co.,
As a general proposition, issues оf negligence, contributory negligence and lack of ordinary care for one’s own safеty are not
*292
susceptible of summary adjudication either for or against the claimant, but should be rеsolved by trial before a jury.
Ellington v. Tolar Constr. Co.,
Judgment reversed.