 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CARTER v. SPELLS11/18/1997
ence is consistent with direct and unimpeached evidence showing the non-existence of such a fact." (Citation and punctuation omitted). Red Top Cab Co. v. Hyder, 130 Ga. App. 870, 871 (204 S.E.2d 814) (1974). Nor does any of the evidence offered otherwise relate to the nature of his driving on this occasion.
Spells was later ticketed twice for speeding and no proof of
insurance, but driving violations support punitive damages only when they demonstrate the defendant's "`wilfulness or reckless disregard of consequences.'" City of Monroe v. Jordan, 201 Ga. App. 332, 333 (2) (411 S.E.2d 511) (1991). This collision did not stem from speeding.
Summary judgment on this portion of the Carters' claims was proper.
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, C.J., Birdsong, P.J., and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concur and concur specially. McMurray, P.J., and Ruffin and Eldridge, JJ., dissent.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 18, 1997.
I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants as to the plaintiffs Christopher Carter's and Janet Carter's claim for punitive damages in their tort action against defendant John Spells, who ran a red light while driving his mother's vehicle, and collided with plaintiffs. I cannot improve upon the cogent dissent of Judge Johnson in Bradford v. Xerox Corp., 216 Ga. App. 83, 84-85 (453 S.E.2d 98), and so I adopt the same here. While I do not believe that evidence of defendant John Spells' violent temper in unrelated matters not involving these plaintiffs is probative of any conscious disregard of the consequences as would support an award of punitive damages for this collision, there is also evidence that, on the night in question, defendant John Spells drove speedily and recklessly out of a parking lot into the street, jumping or hitting the curb as he did so. Also, there is evidence of subsequent speeding tickets. Standing alone, neither of these circumstances is sufficient to prove aggravating or outrageous circumstances. But in combination, they afford, in my view, an adequate "clear and convincing" evidentiary basis to authorize the imposition of punitive damages in this case, based on defendant John Spells' demonstrated wilful and wanton disregard for the rules of the road in a manner directly affecting the safety of other members of the traveling public. Smith v. Tommy Roberts Trucking Co., 209 Ga. App. 826, 828 (2) (435 S.E.2d 54). As the propriety of any such exemplary award is for the jury to determine in the first instance, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Ruffin and Judge Eldridge join in this dissent.
McMURRAY, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
|