Schwartz timely appeals. Schwartz maintains it was error for Judge Anderson to overturn the summary judgment orders of Judges Bell and Lahey, who granted him judgment on the issue of liability. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. On appeal, we apply the same rules, and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.
Summary judgments are to be granted with caution in negligence actions.
The summary judgment on the issue of liability left the issue of damages undecided. Since the order concerning Schwartz' motion for summary judgment adjudicated fewer than all of the issues, the order was subject to revision at any time before a final judgment was entered. Even though the order granting summary judgment to Schwartz on the issue of liability was subject to revision at any time before a final judgment was entered, granting summary judgment to Dr. Abay is inconsistent with summary judgment being granted to Schwartz. Part of the problem is that three different trial judges issued orders which granted judgment in favor of both parties. The two judgments are inconsistent and, therefore, cannot stand.