 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CARTER v. SPELLS11/18/1997
In this lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle collision, plaintiffs Christopher and Janet Carter appeal the grant of partial summary judgment to defendant Johnny Spells on the Carters' claim for punitive damages.
Evidence showed that as Christopher Carter drove his vehicle through an intersection in Valdosta, Spells' truck entered the intersection on a red light and collided with Carter. The Carters contended punitive damages would be justified because Spells' activities that evening, and other evidence showing his "reckless" and "violent" behavior, provided clear and convincing evidence of "that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences," as required by OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (b). The trial court rejected this argument.
On appeal from a trial court's grant of summary judgment, the record is reviewed de novo and the evidence construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, to determine whether the trial court properly concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed and movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Gentile v. Bower, 222 Ga. App. 736, 737 (477 S.E.2d 130) (1996). As the party seeking summary judgment, Spells is not required to "affirmatively disprove" the Carters' claim for punitive damages; "instead, burden . . . may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the [Carters'] case. If discharges this burden, the [Carters] cannot rest on [their] pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue." Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 S.E.2d 474) (1991). The question is whether the Carters produced evidence from which a jury could find Spells' actions showed conscious indifference to consequences as alleged in the second amended
complaint and as provided by OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (b). See Cullen v. Novak, 201 Ga. App. 459, 460 (2) (411 S.E.2d 331) (1991).
In automobile collision cases decided under OCGA § 51-12-5.1, punitive damages are not recoverable where the driver at fault simply violated a rule of the road. See, e.g., Bradford v. Xerox Corp., 216 Ga. App. 83 (453 S.E.2d 98) (1994) (defendant's speeding did not warrant imposition of punitive damages absent evidence of other aggravating circumstances); Coker v. Culter, 208 Ga. App. 651 (431 S.E.2d 443) (1993) (punitive damages not warranted even though defendant was speeding on wet roads, had consumed some alcohol, and behaved abominably after collision); Cullen, supra (careless running of red light not sufficient aggravating circumstance).
On the other hand, punitive damages are recoverable under the statute where the collision resulted from a pattern or policy of dangerous driving. See, e.g., Boyett v. Webster, 224 Ga. App. 843 (482 S.E.2d 377) (1996) (cert. granted) (DUI in incident and on previous occasions); Cheevers v. Clark, 214 Ga. App. 866, 869 (4) (449 S.E.2d 528) (1994) (drunk driving in incident at issue as well as subsequent arrests for drunk driving); Holt v. Grinnell, 212 Ga. App. 520 (441 S.E.2d 874) (1994) (drunken driving); Smith v. Tommy Roberts Trucking Co., 209 Ga. App. 826, 828 (2) (435 S.E.2d 54) (1993) (a "policy" of excessive speed plus defendant struck plaintiff's vehicle twice and kept pushing); J. B. Hunt Transport v. Bentley, 207 Ga. App. 250, 255 (2) (427 S.E.2d 499) (1992) (truck driver drove 20 miles despite serious mechanical problem which caused collision); Viau v. Fred Dean, Inc., 203 Ga. App. 801, 804 (4) (418 S.E.2d 604) (1992) (drunken driving); Day v. Burnett, 199 Ga. App. 494, 496 (2) (405 S.E.2d 316) (1991) (drivin
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|