Patterson v. Kevon, LLC
Decision Date | 20 August 2018 |
Docket Number | S17G1957 |
Citation | 304 Ga. 232,818 S.E.2d 575 |
Parties | PATTERSON et al. v. KEVON, LLC d/b/a Big Kev’s Barbecue. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Blakely Holloway Frye, Travis M. Cashbaugh, HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP, 3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800, Atlanta, Georgia 30339, for Appellant.
John David Hadden, THE HADDEN LAW FIRM, LLC, 44 Broad Street, Suite 600, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Allison Elmore Thornton, GEORGIA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, 3350 Centennial Tower, 101 Marietta Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Amicus Appellant.
Pamela Newsom Lee, David Anthony Smith, SWIFT, CURRIE, MCGHEE & HIERS LLP, 1355 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, for Appellee.
We granted this petition for certiorari to consider whether summary judgment for the defendant was properly granted in this food poisoning case. In Patterson v. Kevon, LLC, 342 Ga. App. 256, 802 S.E.2d 442 (2017), a sharply divided Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant caterer on the issue of proximate cause.1 For the reasons stated below, we find that the standard that has developed over the years in the Court of Appeals has conflated cases at both the trial and summary judgment stages, thus creating the mistaken impression that food poisoning cases "are a unique species of negligence cases" imposing a heavier burden upon the plaintiff to show proximate cause than that generally required of nonmovants on summary judgment. Id. at 259, 802 S.E.2d 442. The appropriate legal standard on summary judgment, correctly applied to the facts of this case, shows that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.2
The facts are recited at some length in the Court of Appeals opinion. To summarize, Joshua and Taylor Patterson became ill after eating food at a wedding rehearsal dinner prepared, catered, and served by Big Kev’s Barbeque. The Pattersons brought this action for negligence, violation of the Georgia Food Act ( OCGA § 26-2-20 et seq. ), and products liability, alleging that the food at the dinner was defective, pathogen-contaminated, undercooked, and negligently prepared.
After limited discovery, Big Kev’s moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Pattersons "are unable to show that their alleged food poisoning was proximately caused by Defendant." In support of their argument, Big Kev’s asserted that the Pattersons also consumed items prepared by others at the rehearsal dinner, such as dessert or alcohol, as well as improperly stored leftovers from the rehearsal dinner and food at the wedding reception the following day. In addition, Big Kev’s pointed to evidence that the Pattersons ate other meals, including fast food, and drove to Florida before Mr. Patterson began to feel ill, three days after the rehearsal dinner, and that Mrs. Patterson did not begin to feel ill until several days later. Big Kev’s asserted that the owners of the event venue, their employees, and other guests who consumed the food did not become ill. Big Kev’s owner also testified to his procedures in receiving, cooking, and serving the food.
In response, the Pattersons pointed to the deposition testimony of several witnesses who became ill with similar symptoms after eating Big Kev’s food at the rehearsal dinner. Mr. Patterson tested positive for salmonella, and a guest at the rehearsal dinner, who ate Big Kev’s meal but did not consume food at the wedding reception, also tested positive for salmonella. Three other guests testified that they became ill at around the same time after eating at the rehearsal dinner. Mr. Patterson testified that four other people who became ill, including Mrs. Patterson, did not eat at the wedding reception. Other guests who became ill testified that they did not consume dessert, drinks, or leftovers. Testimony was presented that as many as 16 to 20 people became ill after the dinner. Counsel for the Pattersons noted this testimony, adding, "but that’s, at this point, hearsay and, you know, we have not been able to track down everybody."3 The Pattersons asserted that the evidence creates an issue of fact with respect to causation, and that this is sufficient for their claims to survive summary judgment. They argued that the issue of causation, like that of negligence, is ultimately for the jury.
(Citations and footnote omitted.) 342 Ga. App. at 259-260, 802 S.E.2d 442. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Big Kev’s. Two vigorous dissents catalogued the evidence supporting the Pattersons’ claims and pointed out that the standard established by the majority was more appropriate for the burden of proof at trial rather than on motion for summary judgment. This Court granted the Pattersons’ petition for writ of certiorari.
(Citations omitted.) Id. at 491, 405 S.E.2d 474. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants and drawing every reasonable inference in their favor. McBee v. Aspire at West Midtown Apts., L.P., 302 Ga. 662, 662-663 (1), 807 S.E.2d 455 (2017). Under the evidence presented here, construed as required by law, this appeal is resolved by the well-established rules governing circumstantial and direct evidence on summary judgment.
"Circumstantial evidence can be described as evidence which does not constitute direct proof with regard to the issue of fact or the hypothesis sought to be proven by the evidence; rather, circumstantial evidence constitutes proof of other facts consistent with the hypothesis claimed." Southern R. Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 258 Ga. 232, 232, 367 S.E.2d 539 (1988). Generally, "[i]n passing upon a motion for summary judgment, a finding of fact which may be inferred but is not demanded by circumstantial evidence has no probative value against positive and uncontradicted evidence that no such fact exists." (Citations and punctuation omitted). Haley v. Regions Bank, 277 Ga. 85, 89 (1), 586 S.E.2d 633 (2003). But this rule is subject to an important qualification: "In neither criminal nor civil cases is it required that the proved circumstances shall show consistency with the hypothesis claimed and inconsistency with all other reasonable theories to the point of logical demonstration." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Southern R. Co., supra, 258 Ga. at 233, 367 S.E.2d 539. Circumstantial evidence, therefore, may be sufficient for a plaintiff’s claim to survive summary judgment, if other theories are shown to be less probable . There is no requirement that other theories be conclusively "excluded" as proposed by Big Kev’s and held by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yim v. Carr
...punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Callaway v. Quinn , 347 Ga. App. 325, 328, 819 S.E.2d 493 (2018). See Patterson v. Kevon, LLC , 304 Ga. 232, 236, 818 S.E.2d 575 (2018) (discussing rules governing circumstantial and direct evidence on summary judgment and noting that "[c]ircumstanti......
-
Handberry v. Manning Forestry Servs., LLC., A19A1321
...App. 200, 202 (1), 695 S.E.2d 405 (2010).9 Tookes v. Murray , 297 Ga. App. 765, 766, 678 S.E.2d 209 (2009).10 Patterson v. Kevon, LLC , 304 Ga. 232, 235, 818 S.E.2d 575 (2018) (punctuation omitted); accord Dyess v. Brewton , 284 Ga. 583, 586 (3), 669 S.E.2d 145 (2008) ; McQuaig , 269 Ga. Ap......
-
Atlanta Partners Realty, LLC v. Dennis
...for summary judgment, and we may consider unobjected-to hearsay in reviewing a motion for summary judgment. Patterson v. Kevon, LLC , 304 Ga. 232, 234, n. 3, 818 S.E.2d 575 (2018) ; DirecTV, LLC v. White , 355 Ga. App. 404, 408 (1), n. 5, 844 S.E.2d 289 (2020).5 Because the Agreement contai......
-
Duvall v. Cronic
...evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants and drawing every reasonable inference in their favor." Patterson v. Kevon, LLC , 304 Ga. 232, 236, 818 S.E.2d 575 (2018) (citation omitted).As stated above, these cross-appeals challenge the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgm......
-
Product Liability
...610 (1993). 44. Id.45. 348 Ga. App. at 10, 821 S.E.2d at 97.46. Id.47. Id. at 10-11, 821 S.E.2d at 97.48. Id. at 12, 821 S.E.2d at 98.49. 304 Ga. 232, 818 S.E.2d 575 (2018).50. O.C.G.A. §§ 26-2-1-26-2-441 (2019).51. Patterson, 304 Ga. at 233-34, 818 S.E.2d at 576-77.52. Id. at 236, 818 S.E.......
-
Torts
...803 S.E.2d 614 (2017).48. Id. at 473, 803 S.E.2d at 617.49. Id. at 470-71, 803 S.E.2d at 615.50. Id. 51. Id. at 473, 803 S.E.2d at 616.52. 304 Ga. 232, 818 S.E.2d 575 (2018).53. Id. at 233, 818 S.E.2d at 576.54. Id. at 233, 818 S.E.2d at 576-77.55. Id. at 237, 818 S.E.2d at 579.56. Id. at 2......