Erickson v. Hodges
| Decision Date | 22 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. A02A1371.,A02A1371. |
| Citation | 570 S.E.2d 420,257 Ga. App. 144 |
| Parties | ERICKSON et al. v. HODGES. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Stephen L. Cotter, Atlanta, Maren R. Frost, for appellants.
Chambers, Aholt & Rickard, Ian R. Rapaport, Curtis A. Thurston, Jr., James E. Holmes, Atlanta, for appellee.
Paul and Brenda Erickson appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment in this personal injury action premised on the Dram Shop Act, OCGA § 51-1-40. They contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no evidence that they knowingly furnished alcoholic beverages to Brian Hammock while he was in a state of noticeable intoxication, and there was no evidence that they knew Hammock would soon be driving a car at any relevant time. The Ericksons argue that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to these matters and the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the trial court's ruling and remand the matter for further action.
"[S]ummary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to each essential element of the case." Lau's Corp. v. Haskins.1 Viewed in this light, the record shows that, on the evening of January 23, 1999, the Ericksons held a birthday party for Mrs. Erickson at their home with an unattended open self-service bar located in the basement. Paul Erickson invited guests by mail and telephone, and about 50 to 60 guests were at the party.
In addition to the guests they invited, the Erickson's 23-year-old son, David, was allowed to extend invitations to his friends who were known by his parents. Arrangements were made for all of David's guests to spend the night at the Ericksons' home. David invited approximately eight adult friends, including Scott Hammock. Sometime during the party, and without the knowledge or consent of David or the Ericksons, Scott paged his 21-year-old brother, Brian, and invited him to the party. Brian came to the party. David Erickson only saw him sitting in the garage at one point. He did not know where he had been prior to the party or what time he left the party. David did not see Brian drinking at the party. He does not recall talking to Brian at the party. Neither David nor the Ericksons were aware of the time Brian left the party or his condition at that time. Approximately one-half mile from the Ericksons' home, Brian's car collided with Hodges' car. Following this incident, Brian Hammock was charged with driving under the influence and pled guilty thereto. Hodges brought the action now before us, contending that the Ericksons are liable for his injuries under the Dram Shop Act.
The Dram Shop Act provides that the consumption of alcoholic beverages rather than the sale of, furnishing, or serving of such beverages is the proximate cause of any injury inflicted by an intoxicated person on another except under certain circumstances as set out in OCGA § 51-1-40(b) which states:
A person who ... knowingly sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person who is in a state of noticeable intoxication, knowing that such person will soon be driving a motor vehicle, may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such ... person when the sale, furnishing, or serving is the proximate cause of such injury or damage.
The trial court's responsibility in ruling on this summary judgment motion was to determine if, based on legal evidence having probative value, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether: (1) the Ericksons furnished alcoholic beverages to Brian; (2) he was noticeably intoxicated at such time; and (3) the Ericksons knew Brian would soon be driving a motor vehicle.
On the issue of whether the Ericksons furnished alcoholic beverages to Brian, it is undisputed that they furnished alcohol to their party guests through an open bar. The Ericksons, however, contend that Brian was not their guest since neither they nor their son...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...the motion to enforce the putative deal does not appear to be necessary to deciding the appeal before us. Cf. Erickson v. Hodges , 257 Ga. App. 144, 146, 570 S.E.2d 420 (2002) (remanding after finding that the trial court's summary judgment ruling was premature, given pending discovery). Th......
-
Andrews v. Blue Ridge NH Assocs., LLC
...afforded an opportunity to depose key witnesses who provided affidavits in support of defendant’s motion). See Erickson v. Hodges , 257 Ga. App. 144, 146, 570 S.E.2d 420 (2002) (vacating summary judgment ruling as premature, where non-movant had not yet been able to depose key witness at ti......
-
Harper v. Robinson, A03A1506.
...statement is hearsay and has no probative value; thus, it cannot be considered on motion for summary judgment. Erickson v. Hodges, 257 Ga.App. 144, 146, 570 S.E.2d 420 (2002). Robinson also stated that his own observations "establish" that Natsayia is a wolf. He stated that he had known peo......
-
Dodson v. Sykes Indus. Holdings, LLC
...the grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Erickson v. Hodges, 257 Ga.App. 144, 146, 570 S.E.2d 420 (2002) (ruling on motion for summary judgment vacated as premature, given pending discovery); Shipley v. Handicaps Mobility Sy......