Court Opinion

ID: 9564454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:00:59.59512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:26.372399
License: Public Domain

Adams, Judge,
concurring and concurring specially.
I concur in the reasoning and result reached in the majority opinion and in Presiding Judge Ruffin’s concurring opinion. I write *235separately only to note that by amending the Teen-age and Adult Driver Responsibility Act in 2001 (Ga. L. 2001, p. 184) to strengthen the original Act (Ga. L. 1997, p. 760), the legislature rightfully acted in response to serious concerns raised by a string of tragic accidents involving dozens of teenage drivers in this state. See Everett, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, 18 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 205, 206 (2001). The law is clearly designed to protect this state’s young drivers as well as those who share the road with them. In this case, there is no question that Gray was violating the curfew provision of the law at the time of the accident. Nevertheless, without any facts suggesting a pattern or policy of dangerous driving, the trial court correctly granted partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages.