Lockhart v. Walker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lockhart v. Walker

183 S.E.2d 503, 124 Ga. App. 241, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 881

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1971

Docket46369

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 183 S.E.2d 503 (Lockhart v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lockhart v. Walker, 183 S.E.2d 503, 124 Ga. App. 241, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 881 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

"Questions of negligence, diligence and contributory negligence are not ordinarily susceptible of adjudication on summary judgment. Brown v. Iocovozzi, 117 Ga. App. 693, 695 (161 SE2d 385). The burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of any material fact rests on the party moving for summary judgment; no duty devolves upon the opposing party to produce rebuttal evidence unless the movant first makes a prima facie showing of right to a summary judgment. Shadix v. Dowdney, 117 Ga. App. 720 (162 SE2d 245). Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Hawes, 120 Ga. App. 4 (169 SE2d 356).” Massey v. Hilton Heights Park, Inc., 121 Ga. App. 214, 219 (173 SE2d 396). To warrant the entry of summary judgment, the undisputed facts "should show the right of the defendant to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy, and they should show affirmatively that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances.” Watkins v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 113 Ga. App. 801, 802 (149 SE2d 749).

To sustain the motion for summary judgment in this slip-and-fall case the defendant relies entirely on the deposition of the plaintiff to prove that he was not negligent in failing to wipe up from the office floor rainwater tracked in by customers. The *242 plaintiff offered no testimony as to how long the water had been on the floor, or any other facts other than that she was wearing a brace; that rainwater had been tracked in; and that she did fall and break her hip. The defendant offered no affirmative evidence at all. While the evidence before us might not sustain a verdict for the plaintiff, it cannot be said as a matter of law that she could under no discernible circumstances effect a recovery.

Argued June 28, 1971 Decided July 13, 1971. Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, Robert C. Pennington, Michael C. Murphy, for appellant. Atkins & Atkins, Dorothy D. Atkins, for appellee.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deen, Judge.

"Questions of negligence, diligence and contributory negligence are not ordinarily susceptible of adjudication on summary judgment. Brown v. Iocovozzi, 117 Ga. App. 693, 695 (161 SE2d 385). The burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of any material fact rests on the party moving for summary judgment; no duty devolves upon the opposing party to produce rebuttal evidence unless the movant first makes a prima facie showing of right to a summary judgment. Shadix v. Dowdney, 117 Ga. App. 720 (162 SE2d 245). Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Hawes, 120 Ga. App. 4 (169 SE2d 356).” Massey v. Hilton Heights Park, Inc., 121 Ga. App. 214, 219 (173 SE2d 396). To warrant the entry of summary judgment, the undisputed facts "should show the right of the defendant to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy, and they should show affirmatively that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances.” Watkins v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 113 Ga. App. 801, 802 (149 SE2d 749).

To sustain the motion for summary judgment in this slip-and-fall case the defendant relies entirely on the deposition of the plaintiff to prove that he was not negligent in failing to wipe up from the office floor rainwater tracked in by customers. The *242 plaintiff offered no testimony as to how long the water had been on the floor, or any other facts other than that she was wearing a brace; that rainwater had been tracked in; and that she did fall and break her hip. The defendant offered no affirmative evidence at all. While the evidence before us might not sustain a verdict for the plaintiff, it cannot be said as a matter of law that she could under no discernible circumstances effect a recovery.

Argued June 28, 1971 Decided July 13, 1971. Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, Robert C. Pennington, Michael C. Murphy, for appellant. Atkins & Atkins, Dorothy D. Atkins, for appellee.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E.2d 503, 124 Ga. App. 241, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockhart-v-walker-gactapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack