Facts
Valerie Jackson was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Sarah Jack. Both were driving in a continuous, dedicated right turn lane, which was the far most right lane. The lane was the turn lane to enter Interstate 16 West. Although the lane was a dedicated right-turn lane onto the interstate, the lane was part of an intersection with a traffic light. While the turn lane was a part of an intersection with a traffic light, the traffic light did not govern the dedicated right turn lane. In fact, there was a sign at the intersection that stated a stop was not required in the dedicated right turn lane even if the light was red. The sign also stated that traffic in the dedicated right turn lane was to keep moving.
As both drivers were traveling through the intersection, Jack stopped her vehicle, causing Jackson to rear-end her. Jack reported to the responding law enforcement officer that she stopped because the traffic light was red and when she stopped, traffic from another lane started to move towards the interstate entrance. Ms. Jackson was marked at fault for the accident but was not cited.
Ms. Jackson sued Ms. Jack for negligence and the case went to trial. At trial, Ms. Jackson presented her case and Ms. Jack moved for a directed verdict which was granted. The trial court believed that Ms. Jackson had not presented evidence that Ms. Jack was negligent. In response, Ms. Jackson filed this appeal.
Issues & Holdings
The issue in this case was whether the directed verdict was improper. The Court of Appeals held it was improper because a jury question remained on the issue of Jack’s negligence.
Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict because there were disputed issues of fact. The Court cited Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jones, where the Court of Appeals held that the liability of a driver who rear-ends another is determined by facts involving the issues of diligence, negligence and proximate cause and those issues should be determined by a jury and only in rare cases should that be passed to judges. 236 Ga. 448, 451 (1976). Additionally, the Court noted that in reviewing a grant for a motion for a directed verdict, the “any evidence” test applies, which means that any evidence was to be construed in the light most favorable to the losing party. Cottrell v. Smith, 299 Ga. 517, 518 (2016).
In viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Ms. Jackson, the Court concluded Ms. Jackson had presented some evidence that created an issue of fact regarding Ms. Jack’s negligence. The Court noted that the dedicated turn lane was not governed by the traffic light and that Ms. Jack said her reason for stopping was because the light was red. At the scene of the wreck, Ms. Jack had only told the responding officer that she stopped because the traffic signal had turned red. The Court stated that a jury question existed on Ms. Jack’s negligence because there was some evidence that she suddenly stopped her car in a continuous lane of traffic that was not governed by the traffic signal.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that the driver who rear-ends another driver is not automatically at fault as a matter of law. There may be a variety of reasons that a driver who gets rear-ended may have been the one at fault. As in this case, the driver may have suddenly stopped without an adequate reason, causing the collision.
Of course, it remains to be seen what a jury would do in this case. It seems likely that the rear-ending driver in a case such as this would be apportioned at least some fault, and potentially 50% or more of the fault, which would preclude recovery. But in terms of whether a directed verdict is appropriate, this case demonstrates that a jury should decide the case where there is at least some evidence demonstrating a jury question on the issue.
To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, learn more here.
Citation: Jackson v. Jack et. al., No. A23A0106 (Ga. Ct. App. May 5, 2023)
