Court Opinion

ID: 9851232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:09:13.798784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:51.758334
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
I join Judge Andrews’ dissent, but I also believe there are other reasons to disagree with the majority.
There is no evidence that any act of negligence caused Alfred Holbrook’s near drowning. There has been no explanation regarding how or why he ended up at the bottom of the pool in the deep end. The majority focuses on the lack of a life line at the slope break. Even if the line was required by Fulton County, however, there is no evidence that the lack of one caused the near drowning. In fact, Holbrook admitted that even though the line was not inside the pool, he knew where the deep end was located. Moreover, when he entered the pool, he had no concern about avoiding the deep end. He “wasn’t even thinking about it.” Also, there is no evidence that Alfred Holbrook was unable to swim.
There is no evidence, in my opinion, creating a factual issue regarding causation. “An inference cannot be based upon evidence which is too uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjec*111ture or possibility.” (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Moore v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 216 Ga. App. 72 (454 SE2d 532) (1995). The Holbrooks simply offered no explanation regarding causation in response to appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Because the Holbrooks have not pointed to evidence of causation beyond mere conjecture or possibility, I would reverse the trial court’s ruling.
Decided November 17, 1995
Appelbaum & LaRoss, Diane F. LaRoss, for appellants.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Joseph D. Wargo, Richard C. Mitchell, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Birdsong and Judge Andrews join in this dissent.