Opinion ID: 76991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Proximate Cause Issues

Text: 16 Lull further argues that even if there is an issue of material fact as to whether Sanders misused the forklift, we should affirm summary judgment in its favor because even the plaintiff's expert acknowledges that the accident was most likely caused by a third party taping a coin over the safety device. Lull argues that the third party's likely intervention relieved it of any potential liability under Georgia law. 17 We reject Lull's argument because we find that it is a question for the jury as to whether a third party taped a coin over the safety device. 7 What caused the machine to tip over and if the tip over caused Sanders' injuries are questions relating to proximate cause, and, in Georgia, it is axiomatic that questions regarding proximate cause are `undeniably a jury question' and may only be determined by the courts `in plain and undisputed cases.' Ontario Sewing Mach. v. Smith, 275 Ga. 683, 572 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2002). Sanders' expert posited three theories as to why the machine tipped over. No physical evidence of a coin was found, and no one has testified to seeing the safety device altered in any way. A reasonable juror could conclude that this lack of evidence of a third-party intervener indicates that one of the other two explanations offered by Sanders' expert is more plausible. 8