Brenda Wilson and Michael Murphy sued Mallard Creek Holdings d/b/a Calloway Run Aрartment Homes for negligent installation and maintenance of a natural gas water heater and negligent hiring and supervision of maintenance personnel. The plaintiffs contend that they were injurеd by carbon monoxide poisoning from an improperly installed heater. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. The trial court granted the motion, and we affirm.
*747
In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the fаcts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c);
Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,
The following elements are essential to a claim for negligence:
(1) A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct аnd the resulting injury; and (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiffs legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.
(Punctuation omitted.)
Tuggle v. Helms,
In granting summary judgment to the defendant, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish the element of causation. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that there was some mеdical evidence that supported their claim that they had been injured by carbon monoxide poisoning. In their brief to this Court, however, plaintiffs fail to provide a single citation to the record tо support this contention, in violation of this Court’s rules. Court of Appeals Rule 27 (a) (1) & (c) (3) (i). Thus, we are authorized to dismiss this appeal.
Beman v. Kmart,
Moreover, the
only
evidеnce the plaintiffs point to in support of their argument is the testimony of Dr. Dallas Petrey. Without citing to the record, plaintiffs suggest that Dr. Petrеy’s testimony that they had a “flushed appearance” (which can be a sign of carbon monoxide poisoning) is sufficient to creаte a jury issue with regard to causation. This is a complete misrepresentation of Dr. Petrey’s testimony. In fact, Dr. Petrey testified that, with respect to Murphy, he “did not notice a cherry red appearance” that is characteristic of carbon mon
*748
oxide рoisoning. With respect to Wilson, Dr. Petrey made no comment whatsоever on the appearance of her skin. Plaintiffs point tо no other evidence in support of their claims, and “it is not the function of an appellate court to cull the record in search of error on behalf of a party.”
Rice v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
Judgment affirmed.