During the rainy afternoon of April 26, 1991, Vickie Ann Martin was driving her automobile in a southbound lane of U.S. Highway 431, in Boaz, Alabama. That portion of U.S. Highway 431 is a four-lane highway, with two sеts of lanes separated by a median. Mrs. Martin's car was struck from behind by a pickup truck driven by Dwight Rowell. The impact of the collision sent Mrs. Martin's car through а turn lane in the median and into the northbound lanes of the highway. When the collision between Rowell's truck and Mrs. Martin's car occurred, Ira Sherman Arnold was driving a van with a large boat in tow in the northbound lane. Mrs. Martin's car spun across the highway, coming directly in front of Arnold, and Arnold's van collided with Mrs. Martin's car. The impact hurled Mrs. Martin's car into a ditch. Mrs. Martin was killed, and her two children riding with her were injured.
Dennis Martin, husband of Mrs. Martin and administrator of her estate, filed a wrongful death claim agаinst Rowell and Arnold and filed a negligent or wanton entrustment claim against the owner of the vehicle Arnold was driving, John Lyles. As next friend of the minor children, Martin also stаted claims of negligence and wantonness against Rowell and Arnold, seeking damages for the children's injuries. The trial court, without mentioning Rowell and Lyles, grantеd Arnold's motion for a summary judgment, and it certified the judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P. Martin appeals from this judgment in favor of Arnold.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Martin produced substantial evidence to defeat *566 Arnold's properly supported motion for summary judgment.
A motion for a summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine issue as to any matеrial fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P.; Southern Guar. Ins. Co. v. First AlabamaBank,
Rule 56 must be considered with the "substantial evidence rule," §
Arnold suppоrted his motion for summary judgment with various items of evidence, including his own affidavit and portions of a deposition from an eyewitness to the accident. In Arnold's аffidavit, he stated:
"On April 26, 1991, I was headed north on Highway 431 driving a van owned by my uncle, John Lyles. I was pulling a pontoon boat and had just returned from a welding shop where I had attempted to have the boat repaired. It was raining very hard, and I had my windshield wipers on high, as well as my lights on. I was traveling approximately 45 miles per hоur. All of the sudden [sic], without warning, a car shot in front of me traveling backwards. The car was approximately 20 to 25 feet in front of me at the first instance I saw it. I immеdiately slammed on my brakes, but had no chance to stop. I estimate that approximately less than a second transpired between the time I first sаw Mrs. Martin's car and the time of impact. . . . [T]he front wheels of the van were lodged on the car. The van I was driving and Mrs. Martin's car rested in a ditch on the right side of thе road. There was nothing I could have done to avoid the impact with Mrs. Martin's car or the consequences thereof."
The eyewitness stated the following in his deposition:
"Q. Did you hear the initial impaсt before the Honda [Mrs. Martin's car] went into the spin?
"A: Yes. That is what actually grabbed my attention.
"Q. What was the first thing you saw when you turned your attention to the sound?
"A: The first thing was the Honda sliding sideways, you know, and going through the median.
". . . .
"Q. How close was the van to the Honda when it went out into the path of the van?
"A: It was almost instantaneous between the van hitting the Honda. There wаs no room, you know, for the driver of the van to do anything. He — the worst thing he could have done is probably tried to change lanes because, if I'm not mistaken, there was a car beside him when that happened. . . . [The van was going] around 40, 45 [miles per hour], somewhere around there. I mean, I really — you know, it is hard tо judge speed because he was — he had already, you know, put on his brakes."
The record indicates that the accident occurred in a 55-mile-per-hour speed zone.
Arnold argued in his summary judgment motion that he did nothing to proximately cause or contribute to the accident, because he sаid Mrs. Martin's car came into the northbound lane without warning after being hit by Rowell's truck. Arnold made a prima facie showing that he had not acted negligently or wantonly. Therefore, the burden then shifted to Martin to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Arnold had negligently or wantonly caused the accident. West, supra.
Martin, in opposition to the summary judgment motion, cited various portions of Arnold's deposition, including that pаrt in which Arnold stated that he did not see Mrs. Martin's car until it came into his lane and was approximately 20 to 25 feet in front of his *567 van. He further cited Arnold's statement thаt he was looking straight ahead before he saw Mrs. Martin's car but did not see the impact between the Rowell and Martin vehicles, and his statement that therе was no traffic beside or in front of him when Mrs. Martin's car collided with his van. Martin also showed that Arnold had previously been issued several traffic citations.
To еstablish negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty to a foreseeable plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) damage оr injury. Albert v. Hsu,
Proximate cause is an essential element of both negligence claims and wantonness claims. See Albert, supra; Smith, supra. Proximate cause is an act оr omission that in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new independent causes, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have ocсurred. Thetford v. City of Clanton,
The evidence indicates that Arnold was driving 10 miles below the speed limit when the accident occurred. It further indicates that Arnold was driving with his lights on and with his windshield wipers on full speed when the accident occurred. Arnold's evidence indicated that he was acting reasonably and prudently, that he did not see Mrs. Martin's car until it was 20 to 25 feet from his van, and that he, therefore, could not avoid the collision. While a motorist is negligent if he fails to discover a vehicle that hе reasonably could have discovered in time to avoid injury, see Hood v. Murray,
We are satisfied that Martin did not produce substantial evidence to demonstrate that Arnold proximately caused the injuries leading to Mrs. Martin's death. As stated above, concurrent acts may constitute the prоximate cause of injuries. However, Martin must still show that Mrs. Martin's fatal injuries resulted, at least in part, from a negligent or wanton act committed by Arnold. See Buchanan, supra; Lawson, supra. Martin failed to do so. There was not sufficient evidence to refute Arnold's evidence indicating that he was unable to avoid Mrs. Martin's car, after the car had been knocked into his path by Rowell's collision with Mrs. Martin.
When a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no substantial evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, the trial court must consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing. Shows v. Donnell Trucking Co.,
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and STEAGALL, JJ., concur. *568