Shutley v. Hite
| Decision Date | 15 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | 43965. |
| Parties | SHUTLEY et al. v. HITE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Payne, Barlow & Green, William O. Green, Jr., Richard C. Alderman, for appellants.
Reed & Tate, Raymond M. Reed, J. Dudley McClain, for appellee.
George Shutley and his wife and daughter brought three suits against Freeman Hite to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The Shutleys took this appeal from the grant of summary judgments for defendant. The Shutley car was stopped in the right-hand lane of a public highway, facing oncoming traffic, waiting for a car ahead to make a left turn. The Hite car, traveling in the same lane, struck the Shutleys from the rear. Supporting affidavits and testimony show that Hite had come to a complete stop behind the Shutleys and that a third vehicle, following Hite, struck Hite's car from the rear and propelled it into the Shutleys. However, the opposing affidavit of Mrs. Shutley, who was sitting in the front seat of the Shutley car, shows that immediately prior to the collision she turned around to look at her children in the back seat, then saw the Hite vehicle approaching rapidly and realized that a collision would occur; she did not see another car behind Hite at that time and did not see or hear any collision preceding that in which Hite struck the Shutleys; a third car was involved in the collision, but if it had struck the Hite car first she would have seen it. Held:
On summary judgment the court is required to take that view of the evidence most favorable to the opposing party, giving him the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Holland v. Sanfax Corp., 106 Ga. App. 1, 4 (126 SE2d 442); White v. Morris, 114 Ga. App. 618, 620 (152 SE2d 417). This is true even if the affidavit or testimony of the opposing party is not clear or is ambiguous or inconsistent. Boatright v. Padgett Motor Sales, 117 Ga. App. 578, 581 (161 SE2d 402); Woody v. Ralston Purina Co., 117 Ga. App. 352 (160 SE2d 662). A summary judgment should not be granted if the evidence merely preponderates toward the movant's theory or if the evidence does no more than disclose circumstances under which satisfactory proof of the opposing party's case on trial appears to be highly unlikely. Watkins v. Nationwide &c. Ins. Co., 113 Ga. App. 801, 803 (149 SE2d 749). Under the foregoing principles, Mr. Shutley's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beam v. Omark Industries, Inc.
...have recited the facts in their most favorable light for the party opposing the motion in this instance, the plaintiff. Shutley v. Hite, 118 Ga.App. 664, 165 S.E.2d 169. Further, all inferences from the evidence will be interpreted favorably toward making an issue of fact. Bagley v. Firesto......
-
Gingold v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.
...fact, and the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Taylor v. Bolton, 121 Ga.App. 141, 142, 173 S.E.2d 96; Shutley v. Hite, 118 Ga.App. 664, 165 S.E.2d 169; Watkins v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 801, 802, 149 S.E.2d 749; Raven v. Dodd's Auto Sales & Service, ......
-
Taylor v. Bolton, 44715
...Ga.App. 801, 802, 149 S.E.2d 749.' Central of Georgia Railway Company v. Hawes, 120 Ga.App. 4, 169 S.E.2d 356. Also, see Shutley v. Hite, 118 Ga.App. 664, 165 S.E.2d 169. It is also well settled that ordinarily issues of negligence and proximate cause, including defenses such as the assumpt......