 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn v. City of Cave Spring3/22/2000
POPE, P. J., SMITH and MILLER, JJ.
MI-113
Lonnie Quinn sued the City of Cave Spring, Georgia, for personal injury and damage to his automobile caused by driving over an open manhole. The City moved for summary judgment, and Quinn appeals the court's grant of that motion. We affirm.
1. Quinn argues that the court improperly granted summary judgment to the City solely because he failed to comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5, which requires that the party opposing the motion for summary judgment respond by submitting to the court a concise statement of each material fact as to which it is contends there exists a genuine issue to be tried.
The court's order states:
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Brief set forth with specificity the reasons why Defendant claims there are no genuine issues of material fact.
Plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment does not comply with U.S.C.R. 6.5. That is, the Plaintiff does not list the material facts to which it is contended there are genuine issues for trial. Absent such compliance, the court concludes there are no such issues.
. . . Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
Even if Quinn failed to comply with Rule 6.5, summary judgment cannot be granted by default. The failure of the nonmoving party to file pleadings as required by the Uniform Superior Court Rules does not entitle the moving party to the grant of summary judgment.
Although it appears that the court may have granted the motion because Quinn did not comply with U.S.C.R. 6.5, nevertheless on appeal from a grant of summary judgment we conduct a de novo review, because such grant must be affirmed if it is right for any reason.
2. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. To prevail, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.
A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff's case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff's claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Quinn, the evidence shows that as he was driving through the City, he noticed a large amount of water on the right side of the road. He then drove slightly to the left and hit what he later discovered was an uncovered manhole with water spewing out of it. The force of hitting the manhole blew his tires , sending one back tire down into the manhole, and caused his car to spin around, finally hitting a tree. Quinn suffered bruises to his face and torso. When City crews arrived to investigate, they discovered the manhole cover downhill about ten feet away and determined that the cause of the open manhole was a blockage in the sewer system forcing effluent up through the manhole.
In his complaint and brief in response to the City's motion for summary judgment, Quinn claimed that the City negligently maintained its sewer system. He also claimed that the City was negligent per se for violating the rules and regulations of the "Department of Public Health and the Environmental Protection Division."
3. Neit
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|