Facts
Karen Yun was driving a minivan on Fort Howard Road near Rincon, Georgia, when a tractor-trailer crashed into her driver’s side door, killing her. There was evidence from the truck driver and multiple eyewitnesses that indicated Yun failed to see the tractor-trailer and simply turned left at a stop sign into the tractor-trailer’s path. There was evidence from the truck driver and police investigation that the truck driver immediately applied his brakes when Yun pulled out.
The police investigation indicated, however, that the front of the tractor-trailer made contact with Yung’s van in the middle of the median, or gore area, that Yun had to traverse while turning left. The truck driver would have had to leave his southbound lane of travel to enter that median, and indeed, the truck driver said he steered left when he saw Yung pull out. In his deposition though, the truck driver said that the impact actually occurred in the southbound lane of travel, not in the median.
In the trial court, the Defendants trucking company and truck driver moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence the truck driver was negligent or caused the collision because Yung negligently pulled into the truck’s path. In response, the Plaintiff filed an affidavit from Herman Hill, a professional engineer, who gave opinions about the location and cause of the collision. Hill stated that the trucker negligently steered left into the median/gore area, which Yung had the lawful right to be in, causing the collision. Hill’s affidavit stated that he relied on his experience and facts and data typically relied on by experts in his field, and he also listed a number of items of evidence he reviewed.
Defendants filed a motion to strike Hill’s affidavit on the basis that it contained legal conclusions and did not explain his methodology. After a hearing, the trial court struck Hill’s affidavit and granted summary judgment to the Defendants. This appeal followed.
Issues & Holdings
- Was there evidence from which a jury could conclude that the truck driver was negligent and caused the collision?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in striking Hill’s affidavit?
The Court of Appeals held that (1) summary judgment should not have been granted because there was evidence that the truck driver was negligent and caused the collision, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking Hill’s affidavit. The Court of Appeals concluded that, even without Hill’s affidavit though, genuine issues of material fact on the Defendants’ negligence and causation remained.
Reasoning
1. Evidence of Negligence and Causation
In reversing summary judgment, the Court of Appeals relied on the well-established standard for granting summary judgment on negligence and causation issues. “Negligence is not susceptible to summary adjudication except where the evidence is plain, palpable, and indisputable that the respondent cannot present any slight evidence on each essential element of the action in rebuttal to create a jury issues.” Hite v. Anderson, 284 Ga. App. 156, 159, 643 S.E.2d 550 (2007). “Questions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause are peculiarly matters for the jury, and a court should not take the place of the jury in solving them, except in plain and indisputable cases.” Hart v. Phung, 364 Ga. App. 399, 406-407 (2), 876 S.E.2d 1 (2022).
Applying this standard to the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals concluded that there were fact questions on whether the truck driver left his lane of travel before hitting Yun, if he did enter the median whether he was negligence in leaving his lane of travel, swerving left if he knew that Yun was turning in that direction, and failing to maintain his lane of travel. While the jury could have concluded that Yun was entirely at fault for the collision, the evidence did not show as a matter of law that wreck occurred in the southbound lane of travel (as opposed to the median/gore area).
Without considering Hill’s expert affidavit, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was some “non-speculative evidence” that wreck would not have occurred if the truck driver had maintained his lane of travel and not swerved left. This included brake marks pictures of the scene, witness statements, measurements of Yung’s distance of travel prior to impact, the truck driver’s approximate speed of travel prior to brake, and the trajectory of the vehicles and site of impact based on the police accident report.
In short, while a jury could find that Yun was at fault for the collision, it could reach the opposite conclusion as well and conclude that the Defendants were negligent.
2. Hill’s Affidavit
The Court of Appeals began its review of Hill’s affidavit by citing O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b), which provides:
[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if: (1) The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (2) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (3) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (4) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
While Hill’s affidavit did recite the information he relied on, he did not include the “logic behind or specific traffic rules that supports his conclusions.” Because the standard of review as abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the affidavit.
Conclusion
Wang is a reminder of the high standard for obtaining summary judgment on negligence and causation issues. While there was a lot of evidence that Yun was negligent in pulling out in front of the truck driver, there was still some evidence that the truck driver was negligent and caused the wreck. Trial judges are not fact finders and do not sit as a juror in evaluating summary judgment motions. Their sole role is to decide whether there is evidence that could be the basis for a jury’s decision on one side of the issue or the other.
In terms of the expert affidavit, this case demonstrates the importance of including as much detail as possible in providing an expert affidavit in response to a summary judgment motion. It is important to include as much information as possible about the expert’s methodology.
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: Wang v. Dukes, No. A23A0104 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2023)
