Waits v. Makowski, A89A0347
Decision Date | 05 June 1989 |
Docket Number | No. A89A0347,A89A0347 |
Citation | 191 Ga.App. 794,383 S.E.2d 175 |
Parties | WAITS v. MAKOWSKI. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John H. Ramsaur, for appellant.
Rowe & McGarity, William P. Rowe III, Duluth, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the trial court's order granting appellee's motion for summary judgment.
Appellant brought suit for injuries sustained in a multiple car collision in September of 1986.
Appellee exited I-285 at Memorial Drive at a speed faster than normal. Appellee's vehicle did not appear to reduce speed as he approached a line of stopped vehicles. He hit the back of a stopped car which in turn hit the appellant's car knocking it into the car in front of it. Appellee's car then moved backwards suddenly and traveling in reverse struck two other cars. Mr. Martin, a former special forces soldier with some medical training, witnessed the collisions and approached appellee's car. He observed that the appellee was apparently undergoing some type of seizure. The symptoms exhibited by appellee were later confirmed by a neurology specialist as being consistent with the symptoms of a person who is experiencing a seizure.
Appellee asserts the defense of accident. He claims that he had not eaten any food for approximately 20 hours preceeding the collision, and that on the morning of the accident, he had only some coffee and a coke to drink. Appellee remembers entering the exit ramp at a normal rate of speed, suddenly becoming dizzy and becoming unconscious about a second later thereby losing control of his vehicle. Appellee claims he never suffered from seizures before the collision nor had he experienced episodes of dizziness, light-headedness, or unconsciousness. Following the accident, appellee was given emergency medical treatment. Subsequent medical tests and examinations were administered by two doctors; however, apparently "[n]o neurological disorders were found, and no medications or follow-up treatment were required."
In March of 1987, appellee was examined by a neurology specialist following "a generalized atonic-colonic convulsion." It was this doctor's opinion that appellee "suffers from cryptogenic seizure disorder"; and this type of seizure occurs suddenly and without any warning and may result in an immediate loss of consciousness. Held:
Appellant's sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in granting the appellee summary judgment.
1. " Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp., 187 Ga.App. 594(1), 595-596, 370 S.E.2d 843.
Freeman v. Martin, 116 Ga.App. 237, 239, 156 S.E.2d 511, cited by the trial court, pertinently provides (Emphasis supplied.) We adhere to this sound principle.
The record, however, contains the affidavit of Mr. Tate who also witnessed the collision. Mr. Tate recounts, (Emphasis supplied.)
It may be reasonably inferred from this evidence that appellee was not having a seizure nor was he unconscious at the time of the collision, or in the alternative that appellee did not suffer the seizure until after the collision. The fact that appellee's car suddenly went in reverse following the initial impact could support any one of several reasonable inferences; for example, that the appellee voluntarily put his car in reverse to disengage it from the struck vehicle and thereafter lost control of it, or that appellee either while conscious or unconscious was thrown into the gear shift lever involuntarily putting the car in reverse. " " Soto v. Roswell Townhomes, 183 Ga.App. 286, 288, 358 S.E.2d 670; accord Papp Clinic v. Cash, 186 Ga.App. 444, 445, 367 S.E.2d 271. We find that the posture of the evidence, considering the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, presents matters which should be resolved by the jury. Thompson v. Crownover, 259 Ga. 126(5), (6), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- M.J.F., In Interest of
-
Southern General Ins. Co. v. Davis
...to an admission of fact. See SPS Indus. v. Atlantic Steel Co., 186 Ga.App. 94, 98-99, 366 S.E.2d 410 (1988); Waits v. Makowski, 191 Ga.App. 794, 796, 383 S.E.2d 175 (1989). On the other hand, the existence of the default judgment against Park, based on allegations in the previous complaint ......
-
Rapps v. Cooke
...for purposes of summary judgment, and Rapps' lack of response thereto did not amount to an admission of fact. Waits v. Makowski, 191 Ga.App. 794, 796, 383 S.E.2d 175 (1989). The record reflects, however, that the trial court based the grant of summary judgment on sworn oral testimony given ......
-
Sacker v. Perry Realty Services, Inc., A94A1967
...reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, presents matters which should be resolved by the jury. See Waits v. Makowski, 191 Ga.App. 794, 796(1), 383 S.E.2d 175 (1989). A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Perry Realty and D'Youville were negligent in maintaining un......