Wall v. Mansfield et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying Defendants' 28 Motion for Summary Judgment; and, accordingly, determining that Plaintiff's case shall proceed forward to trial. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 8/8/2016. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE

DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

BRANDON ANDREW WALL,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

*

v.

*

CV 114-199

*

DAVID JUNIOR MANSFIELD;

*

WILLIAMS MOVING COMPANY;

*

and VANLINER INSURANCE COMPANY,

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Presently

before

summary judgment

(Doc.

the

Court

28) .

is

Defendants'

motion

For the reasons below,

for

Defendants'

motion is DENIED.

I,

On

morning"

the

morning

in Augusta,

of

BACKGROUND

November

Georgia,

17,

2012,

"a

bright

Plaintiff Brandon Wall stopped by

the Bojangles restaurant on Belair Road.

(Wall Dep.,

at

4.)

28,

37; Mansfield Dep.,

sunny

Doc.

30,

at

Doc. 26-1,

After purchasing

multiple biscuits, Plaintiff, traveling alone in his 1994 Nissan
pickup

truck,

then

approximately 7:40
the

restaurant

Grill.

of

left

a.m.
which

the

Bojangles'

and drove

south on

he

co-owner,

was

a

(Wall Dep. at 8, 10, 27, 32,

70.)

parking

lot

at

Belair Road toward
Diablo's

Southwest

Because Plaintiff's

restaurant was located at 3 668 Wheeler Road in Augusta,
Plaintiff

turned

from

Belair

Road

onto

Wheeler

Georgia,

Road

before

driving over the bridge that hovers above Interstate Highway 20.
(Id.

at

29,

32.)

However,

Plaintiff crashed into a

soon

after

he

crossed

was

being

driven

by

Defendant

parked in the roadway - in front of
he was

bridge,

tractor-trailer that was parked in the

lane in which he was traveling.1 (Id. at 29, 33.)
trailer

the

xxgetting ready to make a

This tractor-

David Mansfield who

the storage

delivery"

had

facility where

- because

"there was

nowhere [for him] to pull over."2 (Mansfield Dep. at 15, 19-20.)
As

a

result of

to his head,

hip,

Dep.

this collision,

69.)

at

39,

and ankle,

Plaintiff

and his

Consequently,

truck was

Plaintiff

Superior Court for the County of Richmond,
24,

2014,

alleging

that

Defendant

incurred injuries

totaled.

filed

suit

Georgia,

Mansfield

was

(Wall

in

on September
negligent

parking the tractor-trailer in Wheeler Road such that he,
with

the

Company,
Insurance

1

tractor-trailer's

and

the

owner,

tractor-trailer's

Company,

should

During his deposition,

be

Defendant

insurer,

liable

for

the

Williams

in

along
Moving

Defendant

Vanliner

Plaintiff's

damages.

Plaintiff testified that, prior to the accident, he

did not "see the tractor trailer that was parked in the right lane of Wheeler
Road"

or become

33.)

Plaintiff also testified that he never "hit the brakes."

2

"aware that the accident was about to happen."

(Wall Dep.

at

(Id. )

At the point at which the collision occurred, Wheeler Road was a four-lane

road with two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes.

(Wall Dep.

at 33;

Ex. 1, Doc. 32.)

The lane in which Plaintiff was traveling was the far right

southbound lane.

(Id.)

(Compl.,

Doc.

1-1.)

Subsequently,

Defendants

removed

Plaintiff's case to this Court and ultimately filed the instant

motion

for

Plaintiff

summary
has

Defendants

filed

have

Defendants'

judgment.3
a

filed

motion

brief
a

for

(Docs.
in

28.)

opposition

reply

summary

1,

brief

Since
(Doc.

(Doc.

judgment

is

32)

34) .

now

then,
and

Hence,

ripe

for

the

Court's consideration.
II,

Defendants'

motion

DISCUSSION

for

summary

judgment

will

be

granted

only if xxthere is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

Fed.

Civ.

if

P.

could

56(a).

affect

In this
the

substantive law.

248

(1986) .

Court

must

of

facts

the

are

suit

view

the

in

Prop. ,

facts

Liberty Lobby,

Matsushita

574, 587
[its]

941

in

light

Elec.

Inc.,

of

most

Indus.

the

Co.

they

governing

477 U.S.

242,

the parties,

the

favorable

the

v.

to

Zenith Radio

(1986), and must draw "all justifiable

favor,"

F.2d

the

"material"

under

In evaluating the contentions

Corp. , 475 U.S.

Real

outcome

Anderson v.

non-moving party,

inferences

context,

R.

1428,

United

1437

States

(11th

v.

Cir.

Four

1991)

Parcels

(en

of

banc)

(internal punctuation and citations omitted).

3 In compliance with Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir.
1985) (per curiam), the Clerk provided Plaintiff with notice of the summary
judgment motion, the summary judgment rules, the right to file affidavits or
other materials in opposition, and the consequences of default.

(Doc. 29.)

Initially,
the Court,

by reference to materials on file,

motion.
How

carry

at

1115

trial.

at

two

Corp.

this

burden

1993).

trial,

ways

v.

Catrett,
depends

Fitzpatrick v.

(11th Cir.

proof

of

Celotex

to

proof

the moving party bears the burden and must show

When

477
on

U.S.

who

317,

323

bears

the

Atlanta,

City of

the

the basis

2

non-movant

has

for the

(1986).

burden

of

F.3d 1112,

the

burden

of

the movant may carry the initial burden in one

—

by

negating

an

essential

element

of

the

non-

movant 's case or by showing that there is no evidence to prove a
fact necessary to

Clark,

inc.,

Adickes

v.

477 U.S.

its

S.H.

F.2d

604,

Kress

317).

opposition,
met

929

the non-movant's

&

Before

case.

606-08

Co.,

398

See Clark v.

(11th Cir.
U.S.

144

1991)

(1970)

Coats &

(explaining
and

evaluating the non-movant's

Celotex,

response

in

the Court must first consider whether the movant has

initial

burden

of

showing

that

there

are

no

genuine

issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a

matter

of

(11th Cir.

law.

Jones

1997)

(per curiam).

the non-movant
Clark,

v.

cannot meet

City of

Columbus,

120

F.3d 248,

254

A mere conclusory statement that

the burden at

trial

is

insufficient.

929 F.2d at 608.

If — and only if — the movant carries its initial burden,

the non-movant
that

there

is

may

avoid summary judgment by

indeed

summary judgment."

Id.

a

material

issue

of

fact

*demonstrat[ing]
that

precludes

When the non-movant bears the burden of

proof at

trial,

the non-movant must

method by which the movant

tailor its

carried its

the

burden.

initial

response to

the

If

movant presents evidence affirmatively negating a material fact,
the

non-movant

withstand

fact

a

"must

directed

sought

respond
verdict

with

motion

to be negated."

evidence
at

trial

Fitzpatrick,

2

that was
with

must

either

that

"overlooked, or ignored"

additional

verdict

motion

deficiency."

burden

show

by

evidence

at

at

relying

on

based

1117.

the

record

to

on

The

pleadings

by

allegations contained in the complaint.
F.2d

1032,

1033-34

(11th

Cir.

1116.

If

fact,

the

evidence

"come forward
a

alleged

non-movant

directed

evidentiary

cannot

carry

repeating

Instead,

its

conclusory

See Morris v.

1981).

to

material

contains

withstand

the

or

the

material

by the movant or

sufficient

trial

Id.

the

on

F.3d at

the movant shows an absence of evidence on a
non-movant

sufficient

the

Ross,

663

non-movant

must respond with affidavits or as otherwise provided by Federal
Rule of Civil

In

Procedure 56.

this

case,

breached his

legal

in the right

lane

Plaintiff

duty of
of

collide

alleges

that

Defendant

care by parking his

traffic
with

on Wheeler
the

Road,

tractor-trailer
thereby causing

Plaintiff

to

injuries.

See Shortnacy v. N. Atlanta Internal Med.,

S.E.2d 209, 213

(Ga. Ct. App. 2001)

for

in

negligence

Georgia,

Mansfield

tractor-trailer

and

suffer

P.C.,

556

("To state a cause of action

a plaintiff

must

show

(1)

a

legal

duty to conform to a

standard of conduct raised by law for the

protection of

against

breach

of

others

this

standard;

unreasonable

(3)

a

risks

legally

of

harm;

attributable

connection between the conduct and the resulting injury;
loss

or

damage

to

plaintiffs'

resulting from the breach.").
Defendants
move

argue

forward

Plaintiff

for

has

causation."

that
two

(Defs.'

However,

Plaintiff's
reasons.

"presented no

Br.,

legally

First,

as

28-1,

a

causal
and (4)

interest

with the instant motion,

negligence

evidence

Doc.

protected

(2)

claim

Defendants

on

the

at

4

should

contend

critical

not
that

issue

(internal

of

quotation

marks omitted).)

Second,

evidenced by the following excerpt

from their brief,

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to

exclude other possible causes of the collision:
[Plaintiff]
cannot exclude by his testimony or any
other
witness'
testimony
that
he
was
not
paying
attention, or even that if he was paying attention,
some other vehicle prevented him from changing lanes.
Nor is there any explanation as to why Plaintiff
simply did not stop before striking the trailer.
He
could have been speeding.
He could have been not
paying attention.
He could have been distracted.
He
could have been eating his biscuit.
He never braked.
There is no evidence to exclude any number of other
possibilities as the cause of this accident, because
Plaintiff does not know, and a jury cannot guess or
speculate.
(Id.

at 7-8. )

Despite

Defendants'

arguments,

summary judgment on

the

"introduce

which

evidence

issue of
affords

Plaintiff,

to

causation in fact,
a

reasonable

survive
need only

basis

for

the

conclusion that it

is more likely than not that the conduct of

the

a

defendant

Carter,

another

726

was

cause

S.E.2d 122,

way,

conclude

that but

lane

Wheeler

of

at

Road,

73 0

Ct.

App.

is

(Ga.

this

and

the

2011)

a

have

related

4

Supp.

Wolfe

(citation omitted).

need

2d

v.

Put

only

provide

for a

jury to

would

("To show that

cause

in

fact
but

not

Lovett,

Here,

been

this

issues

of

714

conduct,

assumption

of

risk

conduct of

a

plaintiff

he would not

the facts set

Moreover,

negligent,

Swinney v.

1358,

1365

Ga.

2011)

while

"[c]ausation,

and

comparative

Schneider Nat'l Carriers,
(N.D.

the

S.E.2d 723,

injuries,

in light of

comparatively

incurred

the wrongful

of his

for

have

are generally matters for the jury to decide,

than the court."
F.

result."

Plaintiff has met this burden.4

may

negligence,

the

juncture,

See Strength v.

have sustained the injury.").

Plaintiff

2012)

Plaintiff

ordinarily must prove that,

forth above,

of

create a reasonable basis

that he did.

the defendant

fact

for Defendant Mansfield parking in the right

injuries
(Ga.

125

Plaintiff,

sufficient evidence to

in

(citing

rather

Inc.,

829

Atlanta

In their brief in support of summary judgment, Defendants rely heavily upon

the Georgia Court of Appeals' decision in Tuggle v. Helms, 499 S.E. 2d 365
(Ga. Ct. App. 1998) .
In Tuggle, because an automobile passenger did not
present anything more than speculation as to how the automobile's driver lost
control of the vehicle and thus caused the injuries that the passenger
sustained, the court held that the passenger failed to present sufficient
evidence as to breach and causation to withstand summary judgment.
Id. at
368.
However, unlike the passenger in Tuggle, Plaintiff has presented more

than speculation as to breach and causation.
Plaintiff has presented
evidence suggesting (1) that Defendant Mansfield breached his duty of care by
parking in Wheeler Road and (2) that this conduct was a cause in fact of the
collision and Plaintiff's resulting injuries.
For this reason, the Tuggle
court's holding is inapplicable here.

Affordable Hous.

(Ga.

Ct.

App.

Fund Ltd.

2002)).

P'ship v.

Brown,

Accordingly,

558

S.E.2d 827,

Plaintiff's

case

831

shall

proceed forward to trial.

III.

For

the reasons

above,

CONCLUSION

the Court DENIES

Defendants'

motion

for summary judgment (Doc. 28) .

ORDER
August,

ENTERED at

Augusta,

Georgia,

this

/\

day

of

2016.

HONORABLE J.

RANDAL HALL

UNITE?) STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IERN DISTRICT

OF

GEORGIA