From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 14, 1985
326 S.E.2d 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

69170.

DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1985.

Action for damages. Douglas Superior Court. Before Judge James.

Miles L. Gammage, for appellant.

Richard B. Eason, Jr., Carolyn J. Kennedy, for appellee.


Appellant Smith sued Thompson for injuries sustained in a collision when Smith was riding as passenger in Thompson's car. The collision occurred in 1981 on a narrow dirt road when Thompson's car crested a hill and ran into an oncoming car. Summary judgment was granted to Thompson. Held:

Appellant Smith contends summary judgment was improper because the jury should have decided the question of gross negligence, which was the standard of liability for a driver under the guest passenger rule in effect when this accident occurred ( Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 ( 106 S.E. 297)). (On November 1, 1982, OCGA § 51-1-36 became effective and established the duty of ordinary care of drivers to all persons. See Rider v. Taylor, 166 Ga. App. 474 ( 304 S.E.2d 557) as to the applicability of the guest passenger rule to accidents occurring prior to November 1, 1982.)

Summary judgment to Thompson was proper. Appellant Smith alleged in his suit and argues in his appellate brief that Thompson was driving in the middle of the dirt road and thus by gross negligence caused the collision. However, the record does not bear out this argument. Smith himself testified at deposition that Thompson was driving at a normal rate of speed considering the road conditions and was driving on the proper side of the road; that Thompson drove to the far right side of the road to avoid a mud rut in the center of the road; that he (Smith) heard the skidding sounds as the oncoming vehicle skidded on the gravel before impact; that he later measured the skidmarks and noted that the other car was skidding toward the center of the roadway. He testified he was sure Thompson could not have avoided the accident. There is no evidence in the record that Thompson was grossly negligent; this is only an allegation by conjecture. Summary judgment to Thompson was proper, as there was no material issue of fact. OCGA § 9-11-56; Summer-Minter Assoc. v. Giordano, 231 Ga. 601 ( 203 S.E.2d 173).

Judgment affirmed. Beasley, J., concurs. Carley, J., concurs in the judgment only.

DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1985 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Smith v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 14, 1985
326 S.E.2d 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Smith v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:SMITH v. THOMPSON

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jan 14, 1985

Citations

326 S.E.2d 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
326 S.E.2d 244

Citing Cases

Washington v. Washington

In its order granting summary judgment to Kelvin, the trial court found that there was no evidence in the…

McQuaig v. Tarrant

See Stokes v. Cantrell, 238 Ga. App. 741 ( 520 SE2d 248) (1999). See Smith v. Thompson, 173 Ga. App. 273 (…