 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Willingham v. Hudson7/7/2005
that appellee's contractual performance bonus was contingent in some degree upon his complying with the request for assistance. The terms of the contract do not indicate any such contingency and appellee affirmatively denied that any such contingency existed. "Guesses or speculation which raise merely a conjecture or possibility are not sufficient to create even an inference of fact for consideration on summary judgment." Heath v. Rush,259 Ga. App. 887, 888 (578 SE2d 564) (2003).
We emphasize that appellee's failure to charge for his services does not control the applicability of the "Good Samaritan" defense in its entirety. "The expectation of payment is not to be regarded as superficially controlling in a case [involving the "Good Samaritan" defense] . . . If the facts show a duty to respond by virtue of a person's particular employment, his state of mind as to payment will not thwart that duty." Clayton, supra at 46. Here, evidence that appellee had no duty to render aid to Willingham, coupled with the evidence that he did not charge for his services rendered to her under emergency circumstances, authorized the trial court to determine that the "Good Samaritan" immunity applied in this case. Where there is no evidence that contradicts a physician's affidavit testimony that he did not receive compensation for his services, and where the other requirements establishing immunity have been met, summary judgment in favor of the physician is proper. See Washington v. Clark, 250 Ga. App. 242, 243-244 (550 SE2d 671) (2001) (physical precedent only).
In this case, " aving established the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact and that [Willingham] was not entitled to recover from [appellee] under any theory raised, summary judgment was demanded for [appellee]." Wallace v. Hall, 145 Ga. App. 610, 612 (244 SE2d 129) (1978). Therefore, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in appellee's favor.
2. As a result of our ruling on the applicability of "Good Samaritan" immunity in Division 1, Willingham's enumeration of error as to the applicability of "Hospital" immunity need not be addressed.
Judgment affirmed. Blackburn, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|