 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson v. City of Atlanta6/23/2005
the earlier complaint, the city had a policy of checking and correcting every such complaint. Furthermore, as pointed out by the city, "there is no evidence that the 1997 blockage was at the particular sewer inlet which is complained of by appellant. Appellant's expert states that he believes that the problem is with the north inlet on Perry Boulevard at its intersection with Habershal Drive, yet appellant's expert also states there is more than one sewer inlet at that intersection." In addition, the city correctly points out that "there is absolutely no evidence that the City was notified of other vehicle accidents occurring" at the intersection where this incident occurred "due to standing water."
As for the affidavit testimony of Stevie Anderson concerning his personal belief about the intersection, neither that affidavit nor the affidavit of Thompson's expert shows the length of time any water problem existed at the intersection. As pointed out by the city, "there is no objective evidence that the defects complained of by appellant [have] existed over any significant period of time." Thompson "presented no evidence showing any actual knowledge of how long [the alleged defect] had been in existence. An inference cannot be based upon evidence which is too uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjecture or possibility." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brumbelow v. City of Rome, 215 Ga. App. 321, 322 (450 SE2d 345) (1994). The city was entitled to summary judgment on Thompson's negligence claims.
2. We next reach Thompson's contention that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to the city on her nuisance claim. Knowledge or notice of the alleged defective condition is an element of this claim as well. See Earnheart v. Scott, 213 Ga. App. 188, 189 (1) (444 SE2d 128) (1994). Generally, the issue of whether a nuisance exists is a question of fact, but "in some cases it can be held as a matter of law that no nuisance exists. [Cit.]" Id. As discussed above, Thompson failed to show that the city had notice of any defective condition with respect to the intersection. The city was therefore entitled to summary judgment on this claim as well.
Judgment affirmed. Ellington and Adams, JJ., concur.
|