FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, BROWN and HODGES, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

M ay 4, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 2 A0 18 6 . SCREVEN COUNTY v . SANDLIN.

H O D G E S , J u d g e.

J o s ep h C. San d l i n

, an i n m at e at t h e Screv en Co u n ty Co rrect i o n al In st i t u t e, was

i n ju red i n a s i n g le-v eh i cl e acci d en t wh il e ri d i n g in a p i ck u p t ru ck o w n ed b y Screv en

Co u n t y (t h e “ Co u n ty ”). San d l i n al l eg ed t h at t h e acci d en t was cau s ed b y t h e

n eg li g en ce o f t h e d ri v er, wh o was a Co u n t y em p l o ye e

, a n d t h at t h e Co u n t y was

n eg li g en t u n d er t h eo ri es o f res p o n d eat su p eri o r an d n e g l i g en t en t ru s t m en t

. In a

ren ewal act i o n, San d li n s u ed t h e Co un t y

, an d t h e Co u n t y m o v ed fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

. Fo l l o wi n g a h eari n g

, t he t r i a l co u rt d en i ed th e Co u nt y ’ s m ot i o n an d

g ran t ed a cert i fi cat e o f i m m e d i a t e rev i ew. W e g ran ted t h e Co u n ty ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r

i n t erl o cu t o ry ap peal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f i t s s u m m ary ju dg m en t m o t i o n.

Th e Co u nt y n o w a rg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en tb ecau s e t h e u n d i s p u t ed ev id en ce s h o ws t h at t h e acci den t was cau s ed by an “ act o f

Go d ,” an d t h u s

, no m a t e r i al fact qu es t i o n s ex is t

. Fo r t h e reas on s t h at fo l l o w, we

rev ers e.

Su m m ary ju d g m en t i s ap p ro p ri at e wh en t h e pl ead i n g s an d ev i d en ce “ s h o w t h at

t h ere i s no g en u i n e i s s u e as t o an y m at eri al fact an d t h at t h e m o v i n g p art y i s en t i t l ed

t o j u d gm en t as a m at t er o f l aw.” OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). A d efen d an t s eek i ng s u m m ary

ju d g m en t m ay d em o ns t rat e t h i s

b y ei t h er p res en t in g ev i d en ce n e g at i n g an es s en t i al el em en t of th e

p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s or es t ab l i s h i n g fro m t h e reco rd an ab s en ce o f ev i d en ce

t o su p po rt su ch cl ai m s

. Th u s

, t h e ru l e wi t h reg ard t o su m m ary ju d g m en t

i s t h at a defen d an t wh o wi l l n o t b ear t h e b u rd en o f pro o f at t ri al n eed n o t

affi rm at iv el y d i s p ro v e t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y ’ s cas e, bu t m ay p o i n t o u t b y

referen ce t o ev i den ce i n t h e reco rd t h at t h ere i s an ab sen ce o f ev i d en ce

t o s u p p o rt an y es s en t ial el em en t o f t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y ’ s cas e. W h ere

a defen dan t m o v i n g fo r s u m m ary j u d gm en t d i sch arg es t h i s b u rd en

, th e

n o n m o v i n g p art y can n o t res t o n i ts p l ead i n g s

, b u t rat h er m u s t p o i n t t o

s p eci fi c ev i d en ce g iv i n g ri s e t o a t ri ab l e i s s u e.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Co wa r t v. Wi d e n e r

, 2 8 7 Ga. 6 2 2

, 6 2 3 (1 ) (a)

(6 9 7 SE2 d 7 7 9) (2 0 1 0 ). W e rev i ew a tri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o r de n i al o f s u m m ary

ju d g m en t d e n o v o

, co n st ru i n g t he ev i d en ce an d al l reas o nab l e in feren ces d rawn fro m

i t th e l i g h t m os t fav o rab l e t o San d l i n as t h e n o n m o vi n g p art y . Id . at 6 2 4 (1 ) (a).

2So v i ewed

, t h e ev i d en ce s h ows t h at o n M ay 2 7

, 2 0 1 4

, San dl i n was w eari n g h i s

s eat b el t an d s i t t i n g i n t he m i d dl e o f t h e b ack s eat o f a Co u n t y t ru ck

. Co un t y em p l o y ee

Ro b ert Cu rt i s was d ri v i n g San d l i n an d o th er p ri s o n ers i n t h e t ru ck fo r a wo rk d et ai l

.

Sa n d l i n d e p os ed th at d u ri n g t h e d ri v e, h e h eard an o th er pri s o n er cry o u t

. W h en h e

l o o ked u p

, h e saw t h at t h e t ru ck h ad accel erat ed an d was veeri ng off t he ro ad

, an d

t h at Cu rt is “ was n’ t w ak i n g u p

. . . h e was o u t

. . . lay i n g o n t h e st eeri n g w heel .” Th e

t ru ck “ ju m p ed ” a d i tch o r cu l v ert

, an d sl i d i n t o t h e n ex t co n cret e cu l v ert

, wh i ch

s t op p ed i t s m o t i o n

. San d l i n ’ s s eat b el t b ro k e, an d h e d ep os ed t hat h e was t h ro wn i n to

t h e d as hb o ard an d wi n d s h i el d

. He d ep o s ed t h a t o t h e rs i n t h e t ru ck “ fi n al l y s h o o k

[Cu rt i s ] u p ” an d t hat Cu rt i s was “ s t il l k i n d o f i n s h ock

. . ..” San d l in

, Cu rt i s

, an d t h e

o t h ers ev en t u al l y

were t ak en t o a h o s p i t al em erg en cy d ep art m en t

.

Th e d o ct o r wh o ex am i n ed Cu rt i s at t h e em erg en cy d ep art m en t t he d ay

o f t h e

acci den t wro t e in t h e “ Em erg en cy Ph y s ici an Reco rd ” t h at Cu rt i s rep o rt e d

ex p eri e n c i n g “ h ead ach e” an d “ fat i g u e” ju s t p ri o r t o t h e ep i so d e, an d t h at h e “ l o s t

co n sci o u s n es s .” Th e d o ct o r al s o reco rd ed t h at Cu rt i s h as “ d iab et es ” an d

“ h y p ert en s i o n

. ” In t h e “ Ch i ef Co m p l ai n t ” s ect io n o f t h e rep o rt , t h e p h y si ci an wro t e

“ s y n co p e” an d “ s i n g l e ep i s o d e.” In t h e “ Cl in i cal Im p res s i o n s ” p o rt io n o f t h e rep o rt

,

3the phy sic ia

n wro t e: “ ? Sy n co p e/ ? fel l as l eep [.] ” Cu rt i s su b seque ntly sa w a ne ur ologist

wh o d i ag n o s ed h i m

wi th ep i l ep s y

an d fo u n d t h at h e h ad ex p eri en ced a s ei zu re.

I n a d ep o s i t i o n, Cu rt i s av erred t h at h e h ad n o i n d ep en d en t m em o ry o f t h e

acci den t

, t hat h e h a d n ev er p rev i o us l y b een d i ag n o s ed wi th ep il ep s y o r rel at ed

s y m p to m s

, an d th at h e “ had nev er h ad an y m ed i cal co n d i t io n t h at cau s ed [h i m ] t o l o s e

co n sci o u s n es s .” He d ep o s ed t hat h e h ad n ev er lo s t co ns ci o u s n es s wh i l e d ri v i ng at an y

t i m e p ri o r t o t h e acci d en t an d h ad n ev er h ad i s s u es wi t h an y m ed i cat i on cau s i n g a l o ss

o f co n s ci o u s n es s

. Ri ck J o rd an

, t h e Screv en Co un t y m an ag er, s t at ed i n h i s d ep o s i t i o n

t h at p ri o r t o t h e d at e o f t h e acci d en t

, t h e Co u n t y “ h a d n o kn o wl ed g e o f an y

i m p ai rm en t o r i l ln es s affe c t i n g Ro b ert Les t er Cu rt i s’ s ab i l i t y t o o p erat e a m o t o r

v eh icl e . . . .”

In i t s s o le en u m erat i o n o f erro r, t h e Co un t y co nt en d s t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred

i n d en y i n g i ts m o t io n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t b ecau s e t h e u nco n t r a d i ct ed ev i d en ce

s h o wed t h at Cu rt i s ’ s s ei zu re an d l o s s o f co ns ci o u s n es s were u n fo res eeab l e “ act s o f

Go d .”

[U] n d er ap p ro p ri at e ci rcu m st an ces

, i t m ay b e es t ab l is hed as a m at ter o f

l aw t h at a n act o f Go d was t h e s o l e p ro x i m at e cau s e o f an au t o m o b i l e

acci d en t, th u s en ti t l i n g a d efen d an t t o su m m ary j u d gm en t o n a cl ai m t hat

h i s al l eg ed n eg l i gen t o per a t i o n o f an au t o m o b i l e cau s ed an acci d en t

.

4OCGA § 1-3 -3 (3 ) d efi n es an “ act o f G o d ” as “ an acci d en t p ro d u ced b y

p h y s i cal cau s es wh i ch are i rres i s t i b l e o r i nev i t ab le, s u ch as l i g ht n i ng

,

s t orm s

, p eri l s o f t h e s ea, eart h q u ak es

, i n u n d at i o n s, s ud d e n d eat h

, o r

i l ln es s .”

. . . It fo l l ows t h at

, wh ere t h e d ri ver o f an au to m o b il e s u ffers an

u n fo res eeab l e i l l n es s wh i ch cau s es h i m t o s u d d en l y l o s e co ns ci o us n es s

an d co n t ro l o f t he au t o m o b i l e

, t h e d ri v er’ s l os s o f co n t ro l i s n o t

n eg l ig en t

, an d h e i s n o t l i ab l e fo r an y d am ag es ca u s e d b y th e

o u t -o f-co n t ro l au t o m o b i l e. Th e d ri v er m u s t s h o w t h at an u nfo res eeab l e

l o s s o f co n s ci o us n es s p ro d u ced t h e acci d en t w i t ho u t an y co n tri b u t i n g

n eg l ig en ce o n h i s p art

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i on o m i tt ed ; em p has i s in o ri g in al .) Ha l l i

g an v. Br o un

, 2 8 5 Ga.

Ap p . 2 2 6 , 2 2 6 -2 2 7 (6 45 SE2 d 5 8 1 ) (2 0 0 7 ).

Here, t h e Co u n t y p r es en t ed u n co n tro v ert ed ev i den ce t h at Cu rt i s had n ev er

p rev i o u s l y b e e n d i ag n os ed wi t h ep i l ep s y o r rel at ed sy m p t o m s an d h ad n ev er

p rev i o u s l y l os t co n s ci o u s n es s wh i l e d ri v i n g s uc h t h a t h e co u l d h av e fo res een t h i s

s ei zu re o r l o s s o f co n s ci o u s n es s

. 1 Th e Co u n t y al s o p res en t ed un c o n t r o v ert ed

1 As n o t ed ab o v e, t h e em erg en cy d ep art m en t p hy s i ci an wro t e, i n t h e “ Cl i n i cal

Im p res s i o n s ” s ect io n

, “ ? Sy

n co p e/ ? fel l as leep [.] ” As t he se “ i m pr e ssions” a r e preced ed

b y t h e p h y s i ci an ’ s o w n q u es t i o n m ark d es i g n at i o n

, cl earl y i n d icat i n g t h at t h e

p h y s i ci an was n o t m ak i ng an y d e f i n i t i ve st at em en t in t h i s s ect io n as t o wh at h ad

o ccu rred

, t h i s n o t at i o n d o es n o t creat e a m at eri al qu es t io n o f fact reg ard i n g wh et h er

Cu rt i s fel l as l eep

. “ Gu es s es o r s p ecu l at i o n wh i ch rai s e[] m ere l y a c o n ject u re o r

p o s s i b i l i ty [are] n ot s u ffi ci en t t o creat e ev en an i n feren ce o f fact fo r co n s i d erat i o n o n

s u m m ary ju d g m en t .” (Ci t at i on an d p u n c t u a t i o n o m i t t ed .) Ma n s el l v. S t a r

5ev i d en ce, i n t h e fo rm o f t he affi d av i t fro m t h e Co u n ty m an ag er, t h at t h e Co u n t y was

u n aware o f an y i m

p ai rm en t o r i l l n es s t h at Cu rt i s h ad

, s u ch t h at it co u l d h av e fo res een

t h a t Cu rt i s wo u l d h av e a sei zu re o r l o s e co n s ci o u s n es s wh i l e d ri v i n g a Co u n t y

v eh icl e.

In p res en t i n g t hi s ev i d en ce an d

, t h u s

, p oi n ti n g t o an ab s en ce o f ev i d en ce t h at

ei t h er Cu rt i s o r t h e Co un t y co ul d h av e fo res een Cu rt i s’ s s ei zu re an d s u d d en l o s s o f

co n sci o u s n es s o n t h e d ay o f t h e acci d en t

, t he Co u n t y “ es t ab l i s h ed a p ri m a faci e cas e

i n s u pp o rt o f [i t s ] affi rm at i v e d efen s e o f an ‘ act o f Go d .’ ” H a l l i g a n

, 2 8 5 G a. Ap p

. at

2 2 7

. Th i s b ei n g s o, “ t he b u rd en o f p ro d uct i on wo ul d s h ift t o [San d l i n ] t o p ro d uce

ev i d en ce b y way o f affi d av i t o r o t herwi s e se t t i n g f o r t h s p eci fi c fact s reb u t t i n g t h e

affi rm at i v e d efen se an d s ho wi n g th a t t h ere was a g en u i n e i s s u e fo r t ri al .” Lewi s v.

S mi th , 2 3 8 Ga. Ap p . 6 , 9 (5 1 7 SE2 d 5 3 8 ) (1 9 9 9).

San d l i n has fai l ed t o m eet t h i s b u rd en

. He co u n t ers t h at ev id en ce i n t he reco rd

s h o ws t h at Cu rt i s k new th at h e h ad hy p ert en s i o n an d di ab et es

, an d t h a t h e d ep o s ed

t h a t h e d i d n o t recal l wh et h er h e h ad ch eck ed h i s bl o o d su g ar o n t h e d ay o f t h e

acci den t , an d t h at h e d i d n o t k eep a reco rd o f h i s bl o o d s u g ar l ev el s

. San d l i n p o s i t s

t h a t th i s “ n eg l i g en ce” p rev en t ed Cu rt i s fro m fo res eei n g h is p ro b l em

. San dl i n al s o

En t er p ri s es / Texa co

, In c ., 2 56 Ga. Ap p . 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 (5 6 8 SE2 d 1 4 5 ) (2 0 02 ).

6arg u es t hat t h e ph y s i ci an n ot ed t h at Cu rt i s rep o rt ed h av in g a h ead ach e an d feel i n g

fat i g ued p ri o r t o t h e acci d en t

. 2 Th i s

, San d l i n arg u es

, m ean s t h at Cu rt i s ’ s sei zu re o r

l o s s o f co n s ci o u s n es s “ was t h e r e fo re n o t su d den an d u n fo res eeab le.” San d l i n,

h o wev er, p o in ts u s t o no ev i den ce i n t h e reco rd t h at h y p ert en s io n or d i ab et es

, o r a

fai l u re t o ch eck o n e’ s b l o o d s u g ar, l ead s to s ei zu res o r su d d en l o s s o f co n s ci o u s n es s

.

No r d o es h e d i rect us to an y ev id en ce i n d i cat i n g t h at fat i g u e o r a h ead ach e are

p recu rs o rs to a s ei zu re o r s u d d en l os s o f co n s ci ou s nes s

. 3 See g en eral l y Lewi s

, 2 3 8 Ga.

Ap p . at 8 -9

.

2 San d l i n ’ s ap pel l at e b ri ef al s o co nt en d s th at t h e C o u nt y “ k n ew [] Offi cer

Cu rt i s h ad h eal t h p ro b lem s i n 20 1 2 ” an d t h at h e h ad “ p rev i ou s ly ru n o ff t h e ro ad in

a Co un t y v eh i cl e d ue to ex ces s i v e s p eed ” i n 2 0 1 2, b u t i n co n t rav en t i o n o f o u r ru l es

, San dl i n ’ s ci t at io n s fo r t hes e cl ai m s r e fer o n l y g en eral l y t o a 56 -p ag e s ect i o n o f t h e

reco rd

. “ E ach en u m erat ed erro r s h al l b e s u p p o rt ed i n t h e b ri ef b y s peci f ic ref er en ce

t o t h e reco rd

. . .. In t h e ab s en ce o f a s p eci f i c ref er en ce

, t h e Co u rt wi l l n o t s earch fo r

an d m ay n o t co n si d er t h at en u m erat i o n .” (Em p h as i s s u p p l ied .) Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e

2 5 (c) (2 ) (i ). Fu rt h er, San d l i n ci t es t o n o t h i n g in t h e reco rd

, no r d o es he ev en arg ue,

t h at t h e is s u es t h e Co u n t y al l eg ed l y k n ew ab o u t rel at ed t o an y s o rt o f s ei zu re o r l o ss

o f co n sci o u s n es s , o r t h at San d li n ’ s al l eg ed p ri o r d ri v i n g i s s ue i n v o l v ed a s ei zu re o r

l o s s o f co n s ci o u sn es s s u ch t h at t h e Co u n t y o r Cu rt i s co u l d h av e fo res een t hat Cu rt i s

w o u l d o r co u l d lo s e co n s ci o us n es s w h i l e d ri v in g a Co un t y v eh i cl e. On t h es e

as s ert i o n s

, San d l i n h as fai l ed t o carry h is b u rd en o f sh o w i n g erro r by t he reco rd

. See

Ben net t v. Co t t o n

, 2 4 4 Ga. Ap p . 7 8 4, 7 8 7 (3 ) (5 36 SE2 d 8 0 2 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

3 In fact

, San d l i n h im s el f ci t es t o d ep o s i t i o n t es t i m o n y i n w h i c h Cu rt i s was

as k ed i f a h ead ach e wo u l d “ h av e g i v en y o u s o m e i n d i c at i o n t h at s o m et h i n g was

wro ng ? ” Cu rt i s res p o n ded , “ A h ead ach e? Ho n es t l y , n o , s ir.”

7Becau s e San d l i n fai l ed t o p ro d u ce a n y s p eci fi c fact s reb u t t i n g th e Co u n t y ’ s

affi rm at i v e defen s e an d s h owi n g th at t here was a gen u i ne is s u e fo r t ri al

, t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d en i al o f s u m

m ary ju d gm en t t o t h e Co u n ty

m u s t b e rev ers ed

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Ba r n es , P. J., a n d

Br o wn , J., co n cu r

.

8