Court Opinion

ID: 9764882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:42:40.732151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:02.109858
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the results in this case, I do not agree with all that is said, and thus concur specially.7
*657Bennett contends that Buffalo’s is responsible for his injuries under theories of respondeat superior and negligence. The record contains only circumstantial evidence that Buffalo’s sponsored or participated in giving the party. The flyer said the party was to “help Buffalo’s say farewell” to one of its managers, and some of the party attendees wore restaurant work shirts. One witness testified that he had seen flyers for the party at the restaurant a week beforehand, but did not recall whether they were posted on a wall, being handed out, or stacked on a table. He did not recall the specifics of the flyer and attended the party because a girl he knew invited him. All of the other witnesses, including Bennett and his mother, who investigated the issue after the fight, had only second- or third-hand knowledge of Buffalo’s possible involvement. In fact, in his response to Buffalo’s motion for summary judgment, Bennett cited to his complaint as support for the proposition that his attacker was a Buffalo’s manager, and cited to the indictment against the attacker for the proposition that the company sponsored the party.
In contrast, a stockholder of the company that owns Buffalo’s submitted an affidavit stating that Buffalo’s did not sponsor the party and did not buy food or beverages for the party. He also averred that no one used Buffalo’s beer or liquor licenses to buy alcohol for the party, and that none of the Buffalo’s employees who attended the party was working for the restaurant at the time.
[A] finding of fact that may be inferred from, but is not demanded by, circumstantial evidence has no probative value against positive and uncontradicted evidence that no such fact exists, provided that the circumstantial evidence may be construed consistently with the direct evidence. Summary judgment is improper only when circumstantial evidence is inconsistent with the direct evidence; in such a case a jury question is created.
(Citations omitted.) Copeland v. Houston County Hosp. Auth., 215 Ga. App. 207, 208 (450 SE2d 235) (1994).
The circumstantial evidence of the flyer itself and its presence at the restaurant is not inconsistent with the direct evidence that Buffalo’s did not sponsor the party. Accordingly, Buffalo’s was entitled to summary judgment on all of Bennett’s claims. Discussion of whether the assault was committed by an employee acting within the scope of his employment, whether sponsoring a party where unlimited alcohol was served without adequate security might lead to liability, whether the criminal assault on Bennett was foreseeable, and whether Bennett had “superior knowledge” of the impending assault is not necessary to resolve this appeal.
*658Decided January 27, 2011.
Craig N. Cowart, for appellant.
Lanford, Smith & Kapiloff, David L. Smith, for appellee.
For these reasons, I concur specially in the majority opinion.

 Because I do not agree with all that is said, this opinion is physical precedent only. Court of Appeals Rule 33 (a).