Robertson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 09 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. A91A0151,A91A0151
• Citation: Robertson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 405 S.E.2d 745, 199 Ga.App. 681 (Ga. App. 1991)
• Parties: ROBERTSON v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 745

405 S.E.2d 745

199 Ga.App. 681

ROBERTSON v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

No. A91A0151.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 9, 1991.

E. Graydon Shuford & Associates, Charles F. Perkins, Decatur, for appellant.

Gorby, Reeves, Moraitakis & Whiteman, Michael J. Gorby, Stephanie L. Scheier, Atlanta, for appellee.

SOGNIER, Chief Judge.

Thomas Robertson brought suit against Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), seeking damages for injuries he incurred at MARTA's Peachtree Center rail station. The trial court granted MARTA's motion for summary judgment, and Robertson brings this appeal.

Appellant testified by deposition that after spending time with friends at a local bar and consuming three or four large mixed drinks between midnight and approximately 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. on November 19, 1985, he entered appellee's Peachtree Center station at about 5:00 a.m. and sat down on a bench to wait for the southbound train. Thinking he heard the train approaching, he walked to the edge of the platform, where he noticed another man nearby. The person observed by appellant was never identified or located. Appellant could recall nothing more about the incident other than awakening in the intensive care unit of a hospital. Appellant was discovered on the southbound track of the station shortly after 6:00 a.m. by two MARTA patrons, who signaled an oncoming southbound train in whose path appellant lay. He had incurred extensive injuries, necessitating amputation of his left arm above the elbow.

Appellant contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to appellee because material questions of fact remain for jury determination. We do not agree, and affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to appellee.

To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, it is necessary to establish the essential elements of duty, breach of that duty, and proximate causation, as well as damages, as a basis for liability for the injuries of another. Bradley Center v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 200, 296 S.E.2d 693 (1982). It is well established that "the occurrence of an unfortunate event is not sufficient to authorize an inference of negligence. [Cits.]" Hill v. Hosp. Auth. of Clarke County, 137 Ga.App. 633, 639(4), 224 S.E.2d 739 (1976). In this case, two elements of the cause of action were established. It is clear that appellee had a duty to protect appellant from unreasonable risk of harm because appellee is a common carrier, and accordingly has the duty to exercise "extraordinary diligence" to protect its fare paying passengers. OCGA § 46-9-132. It is also evident from appellant's injuries that he was damaged. The remaining elements of breach of duty and proximate causation are more problematic.

In his complaint, appellant alleged that he fell asleep while waiting for the train; that while asleep he was assaulted, beaten, robbed, and left unconscious on the tracks; and that one or more of appellee's trains ran over him, causing his injuries. In support of its motion for summary judgment, appellee submitted an affidavit from Michael Killian, its manager of Central Control. At the time of the incident, Killian was appellee's Chief Controller, whose duties included maintaining records of train schedules. Killian detailed the pertinent train schedule for the morning of November 19, 1985, from the first "sweep" train, which inspects the tracks for any unusual condition, though the sixth train of the morning, which was the train flagged down by patrons when appellant was discovered on the tracks. Killian listed for each train the time of its departure from the beginning of the line; the time of its arrival at Peachtree Center Station; and the name of the operator. Appellee also submitted affidavits from these operators. Each...