Court Opinion

ID: 9846131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:35:27.919442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:33.816884
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge,
dissenting. 1. I agree with the dissent of Judge Evans. This court has been very inconsistent in its application of the rule that the movant in the motion for summary judgment has the burden of showing there is no issue of material fact to be tried by a jury and that all of the evidence produced is construed most strongly against the movant; and that this burden applies to a defendant movant even though the defendant did not have the burden on the actual trial of the case and that such defendant movant is not entitled to a summary judgment merely because under the evidence appearing on the summary judgment hearing the plaintiff has failed to prove its case. The analogy to a directed verdict (where on the trial a plaintiff fails to prove its case) does not apply under these circumstances. "It has oft times been held that a motion for summary judgment is analogous to a motion for a directed verdict. 'The operation of the motions is, then, essentially the same in reference to those issues upon which the movant for summary judgment would have, at trial, the burden of proof. The operation is, however, somewhat different where the motions are made by the opponent of the party with the trial burden. Assume, for example, that the movant is the defendant who is attacking the merits of plaintiff’s claim. On motion for directed verdict the party resisting the motion, i. e., the plaintiff, has had to and has presented his evidence, which is then scrutinized by the motion. On motion for summary judgment by a defendant on the ground that plaintiff has no valid claim, the defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of producing evidence, of the necessary certitude, which negatives the opposing party’s (plaintiff’s) claim. This is true because the burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact rests on the party moving for summary judgment whether he or his opponent would at trial have the burden of proof on the issue concerned; and rests on him whether he is by it reqúired to show the existence or nonexistence of facts.’ Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 6 (2d Ed.), par. *3356.15[3], pp. 2341-2343. It appears, therefore, that the grant of a summary judgment may be improper where, at the trial, the grant of a directed verdict may be proper. Armco Steel Corp. v. Realty Investment Co., 273 F2d 483.” Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Beaver, 120 Ga. App. 420 (3) (170 SE2d 737). See also Continental Assurance Co. v. Bothell, 121 Ga. App. 868.
2. Even should we concede, however, that the pleading of the plaintiff has been pierced because the evidence of the defendant might authorize a jury to find against the plaintiff and for that reason the plaintiff must come forward with evidence (see General Gas Corp. v. Carn, 103 Ga. App. 542, 545 (120 SE2d 156); Germaine v. Webster’s Shopping Center, 116 Ga. App. 547 (158 SE2d 682); Jerry Lipps, Inc. v. Lewallen, 118 Ga. App. 479 (164 SE2d 232)), the defendant is not entitled to a summary judgment unless the materials adduced on the motion for summary judgment demand a finding in his favor. Moore v. Jones, 120 Ga. App. 521, 522 (171 SE2d 390).
The petition alleged "[t]he plaintiff was taken to surgery for an open reduction and fixation with a metal plate and screws on June 22, 1967, by the defendant, and said metal plate was affixed to the right radius with four screws, one of which was located in or so near the fractured portion of said radius that the same eroded allowing movement to occur within the case in which the plaintiff’s wrist was placed which prevented the same from healing correctly.” While the defendant at one point testified that the insertion of the screws in the break itself would have no particular effect as screws are sometimes placed through breaks as "[wjhere you have an apposition fracture in order to keep both areas of the fracture together, where you have an overlapping apposition like that, screws go through the fracture to the other side, but in this particular instance, to the best of my knowledge, or from the appearance of the x-rays, it shows the screws did not go through the fracture site,” the defendant also testified that the fracture involved here was not an apposition fracture and it was not necessary to pass the screws through the break. The defendant also subsequently testified in reference to an x-ray taken in the later stages of the treatment as follows: "At that time, it shows no indication of union, no evidence of healing of the fracture and it *34is noted that none of the screws appear to have passed through or down across the area of the fracture, I beg your pardon I mis-read that, it says that one of the screws appears to pass directly across the area of fracture and there is resorption of the bone around the screw, this may be contributing to the failure to heal.” And when asked if there was any explanation for that, answered: "Well, now, very likely, in all probability it appears that there is resorption of the bone around the screw and it drops at the area of the fracture because there is no support because the bone does not absorb and there is the reaction when you use metal, this is one of the problems causing a nonunion and in a — with the metal of the plate that this bone will dissolve at the soft part, and or the screw site and moved into the fracture site, however I can not say on the original x-ray that the screw originally passed through the fracture site, I am sure that it did not because I would have been able to have turned it.” This evidence certainly did not demand a finding against the allegations of paragraph 4 of the petition, even should we assume no opinion evidence was involved at all.
In my opinion, the trial court erred in granting a motion for summary judgment.
I am authorized to state that Judge Quillian joins in this dissent.