Spis treści
E.2d 448 (1987)
– Considering the argument between the experts’ testimony towards an evidently hazardous updates, while the inferences are pulled in the lack of past crashes, an issue of fact is available if or not a flawed standing existed and that brand new defendant, on take action out-of normal care in common brand new defendant’s premise safe regarding over three decades the new defendant have had the newest premise, realized otherwise have to have understood manage result in problems for an invitee. Haire v. City of Macon, two hundred Ga. App. 744, 409 S.Age.2d 670, cert. declined, 2 hundred Ga. Software. 896, 409 S.Age.2d 670 (1991).
– Within the a case where in actuality the issue is whether certainly one of the new events met with the requisite intellectual capability to make an agreement, viewpoint proof will not approve this new grant away from summation wisdom that eg party is competent. McCraw v. Watkins, 242 Ga. 452, 249 S.Elizabeth.2d 202 (1978).
– Legitimate dilemma of fact is maybe not raised because of the seller’s very own affidavit as to what value of assets when you look at the a match to own specific results. Baker v. Jellibeans, Inc., 252 Ga. 458, 314 S.Age.2d 874 (1984).
– When the respondent data an enthusiastic affidavit expressing the respondent’s opinion that the wedding is not irretrievably busted which you will find genuine candidates to have reconciliation, then summary judgment might be refuted. Bryan v. Bryan, 248 Ga. 312, 282 S.E.2d 892 (1981).
Because of presumption you to definitely legal counsel are executed for the a standard skillful trend, brand new movant is then required to generate a keen expert’s affidavit, unless there clearly was „obvious and you will palpable” negligence. Flower v. Rollins, 167 Ga. App. 469, 306 S.E.2d 724 (1983).
E.2d 433 (1987)
– When you look at the a hobby up against a great tavern holder developing off an alleged power supply by the you to definitely patron abreast of a different sort of, statements throughout the owner’s affidavit the holder didn’t come with cause to expect what of your own patron and that the owner could not from the do it out-of sensible worry found or prevented burns off was results affect into the ultimate truth become felt like and could not used on an overview view motion. Johnson v. Teams, 165 Ga. Software. 43, 299 S.Elizabeth.2d 99 (1983).
– Inside the an effective widow’s claim against a tree-planting organization to your businesses incapacity in order to report a left behind better as needed because of the O.C.G.An excellent. § 44-1-fourteen, allegedly leading to her husband’s demise as he drove along the better from inside the a several-wheeler, conclusion view is actually right once the widow’s circumstantial facts off a keen professional your business are aware of new better because of a departure throughout the row away from trees at the well’s location cannot defeat the company’s head facts the company did maybe not understand the fresh well. Handberry v. Manning Forestry Servs., LLC, 353 Ga. App. 150, 836 S.Elizabeth.2d 545 (2019).
– Plaintiff for the a health malpractice situation usually do not prevail towards the a motion to own realization view by the just presenting an effective conclusory view the accused try irresponsible otherwise did not adhere to the top-notch fundamental. Plaintiff need certainly to county brand new details and you may introduce new variables of one’s acceptable professional conduct and place forward how or even in exactly what method new accused deviated therefrom. Enjoying v. Nash, 182 Ga. Software. 253, 355 S.Elizabeth.2d 448 (1987); Connell v. Way, 183 Ga. Software. 871, 360 S.
– Is enough to controvert the fresh new defendant’s pro advice and create a question of facts during the a medical malpractice case, the newest plaintiff’s specialist have to base the fresh expert’s viewpoint into the scientific details which are pledged or certified copies, otherwise on the new expert’s personal studies, and the pro need certainly to county brand new particulars in which the defendant’s treatment of the fresh new plaintiff is actually negligent. Enjoying v. Nash, 182 Ga. App. 253, 355 S.