Parlato v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 65740
| Decision Date | 11 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 65740,65740 |
| Parties | PARLATO, et al. v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Paul H. Anderson, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Robert A. Boas, Charles N. Pursley, Jr., Judson Graves, Atlanta, for appellees.
Plaintiffs brought this action against MARTA and its contractor, Expressway Constructors, to recover for physical damage, vandalism, and loss of commercial use of their buildings allegedly caused by construction of a subway under the street abutting the buildings. The parties stipulated that Expressway "was engaged at all times material to this action as prime contractor in the area of the property which is the subject of this action." It was also stipulated that Other stipulated facts concerning restrictions on access to the buildings caused by Expressway's construction activities tend to support plaintiffs' claim for damages based on loss of use of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant Expressway as to the claims for physical damage and loss of use but denied Expressway's motion for summary judgment with regard to the claim for damage caused by vandalism. Plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment, which was also denied. The plaintiffs appeal the grant of summary judgment to Expressway and enumerate as error the denial of their motion for summary judgment.
In support of Expressway's motion for summary judgment, the trial court relied upon the affidavit of Harold Medcalf, a former employee of Expressway, who asserted that he was the "job superintendent during most of the project and was present during the work on a daily basis." Referring to his extensive construction training and experience, he stated that "the work ... was done using reasonable care in accordance with proper, generally accepted construction methods, in a sound, workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the plans and specifications of our MARTA contract." The trial court determined that, absent a counter-affidavit, this affidavit operated to negate plaintiffs' allegations of negligence. Held:
1. "The purpose of the Summary Judgment Act is to eliminate the necessity for trial by jury where, giving the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zampatti v. TRADEBANK INTERN. FRANCHISING
...basis for the conclusions and contentions, then they were insufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment. See Parlato v. MARTA, 165 Ga.App. 758, 302 S.E.2d 613 (1983). These allegations were made in support of the conclusion that TII or Davis "were conducting business in a manner cont......
-
Taylor v. Atlanta Center Ltd.
...that hearsay testimony is insufficient to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Parlato v. MARTA, 165 Ga.App. 758, 759(1), 302 S.E.2d 613 (1983). Accordingly, in the absence of testimony based on personal knowledge or properly authenticated hotel records indicatin......
-
Melman v. Fia Card Servs., N.A.
...argument had been made to the trial court, either in motion to strike affidavit or in summary judgment brief); but see Parlato v. MARTA, 165 Ga.App. 758, 759(1), 302 S.E.2d 613 (1983) (while failure to object to affidavit would have constituted waiver as to form, failure to object did not w......
-
Padgett v. Baxley and Appling County Hospital Authority, A12A1902.
...nursing home did not make that argument. Instead, it challenged the affidavits' “substance rather than form.” Parlato v. MARTA, 165 Ga.App. 758, 759(1), 302 S.E.2d 613 (1983). 3. “Any resident or the representative or legal surrogate of the resident, if any, may bring an action in a court o......