Radford v. Reeves Const. Co., A97A0188

• Decision Date: 21 April 1997
• Docket Number: No. A97A0188,A97A0188
• Parties: , 97 FCDR 1834 RADFORD v. REEVES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 81

486 S.E.2d 81

226 Ga.App. 214, 97 FCDR 1834

RADFORD v. REEVES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

No. A97A0188.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 21, 1997.

Simpson, Gray & Cross, Ralph F. Simpson, Tifton, for appellant.

Sims, Fleming & Spurlin, John C. Spurlin, Macon, for appellee.

BEASLEY, Judge.

Radford sued Reeves Construction Company to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. She appeals the trial court's grant of Reeves' motion for summary judgment.

The accident occurred on Pate Road, which runs generally north and south through Monroe County at or near the city of Bolingbroke. Reeves maintains an office at a quarry north of Bolingbroke and regularly hauls gravel from the quarry. Radford's northbound vehicle overturned after being forced off Pate Road by a southbound tractor-trailer rig. At the time of the accident, Radford could not identify the rig but later described the tractor as big, white, clean as though new, with a Mack grill and pulling a light gray or silver trailer of the type used to haul gravel.

Radford presented the testimony of three motorists who saw a southbound rig driving away from the scene. They all testified that it was an open-top trailer, and one observer described the tractor as white colored and the trailer as silver or light gray. Although no one was able to identify any logo or markings on the rig, one witness testified that he had since that time and on many occasions seen such rigs on the same roadway bearing the Reeves Construction Company name. Two witnesses testified that the rig they saw was of the type they had seen used for carrying gravel from the quarry in Bolingbroke. Two of the witnesses testified that photographs of a vehicle having the appearance of a Reeves Construction Company rig portrayed a rig of the type they saw on the day in question. This constitutes circumstantial evidence from which a jury might infer that the culprit vehicle was owned and operated by Reeves.

In opposition, Reeves presented evidence that white Mack trucks owned by several different persons and entities use Pate Road; that Reeves' trucks have a logo on each side, which none of the motorists testified they saw; and that, because of weight restrictions, its trucks are not legally permitted to use Pate Road unless they are unloaded. The manager of Reeves' Macon division testified that, at the time and place in question, Reeves was operating three loaded vehicles, which were driven by Westaway, Wood, and Reynolds. Westaway and Reynolds testified that they never drove a loaded vehicle on Pate Road. Reynolds testified that he had never seen Wood doing that, but Wood did not testify; he had left Reeves' employ and moved to Florida. Westaway acknowledged that Pate Road would have been the quickest route to the drivers' destination.

" 'On motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the movant, regardless of which party would have the burden of proof at trial, to show there is no genuine issue of material fact. All evidence is to be construed most strongly against the movant, and the party opposing the motion is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. (Cits.)' [Cit.]" Piggly Wiggly Southern v. Bennett, 217 Ga.App. 496, 497, 458 S.E.2d 138 (1995). "In granting such motions, we must remain mindful of the...