– Given the conflict between the experts’ testimony concerning the an evidently unsafe reputation, plus the inferences as taken from the absence of past crashes, a question of fact exists if a defective condition existed hence this new accused, in the get it done away from typical care in accordance the new defendant’s premises safe regarding more than thirty years the fresh accused enjoys owned new premises, know otherwise should have identified perform end in damage to an invitee. Haire v. Town of Macon, 200 Ga. 744, 409 S.E.2d 670, cert. denied, 2 hundred Ga. 896, 409 S.E.2d 670 (1991).

– From inside the a situation where the concern is if or not certainly the newest people encountered the needed intellectual capacity to create a binding agreement, thoughts research does not approve this new grant out of realization judgment one eg class is actually skilled. McCraw v. Watkins, 242 Ga. 452, 249 S.Age.2d 202 (1978).

– Genuine dilemma of fact is maybe not elevated by seller’s own affidavit to what value of assets from inside the a match to own particular results. Baker v. Jellibeans, Inc., 252 Ga. 458, 314 S.E.2d 874 (1984).

– In the event the respondent documents an enthusiastic affidavit expressing the newest respondent’s viewpoint you to definitely the marriage is not irretrievably broken and that you’ll find legitimate applicants for reconciliation, up coming summation judgment would be rejected. Bryan v. Bryan, 248 Ga. 312, 282 S.E.2d 892 (1981).

Rollins, 167 Ga

In view of assumption one to legal services are carried out for the a regular skilled trend, the brand new movant will then be necessary to build a keen expert’s affidavit, until there is certainly “obvious and you can palpable” neglect. Flower v. 469, 306 S.E.2d 724 (1983).

– Inside the an action against good tavern proprietor arising from an so-called power supply because of the that patron up on a special, statements regarding the owner’s affidavit the holder didn’t come with reason to anticipate the actions of patron hence the particular owner cannot by exercise of reasonable proper care discovered or eliminated injury was basically findings results into the best reality becoming felt like and could not utilized on an overview view actions. Johnson v. Crews, 165 Ga. 43, 299 S.Age.2d 99 https://kissbrides.com/web-stories/top-10-hot-moldovan-women/ (1983).

App

– Into the a beneficial widow’s claim facing a forest-growing organization on the business’s inability so you’re able to report a discontinued well as needed by the O.C.Grams.An effective. § 44-1-14, presumably causing their partner’s dying as he drove over the better inside the a four-wheeler, conclusion wisdom is actually best since widow’s circumstantial evidence from an specialist your business is aware of the newest better due to a departure regarding row regarding woods within well’s location cannot overcome their direct proof the providers did not learn about brand new well. Handberry v. Manning Forestry Servs., LLC, 353 Ga. 150, 836 S.Elizabeth.2d 545 (2019).

– Plaintiff for the a healthcare malpractice case don’t prevail into a motion getting summation judgment by just presenting a great conclusory thoughts that the offender is actually irresponsible otherwise did not adhere to the latest elite practical. Plaintiff need to county the fresh new particulars and you may present new parameters of acceptable professional carry out and place forward how or perhaps in just what way this new accused deviated therefrom. Loving v. Nash, 182 Ga. 253, 355 S.Age.2d 448 (1987); Connell v. Lane, 183 Ga. 871, 360 S.Elizabeth.2d 433 (1987).

– To get enough to controvert new defendant’s expert view and create a question of truth when you look at the a health malpractice circumstances, the plaintiff’s expert have to base the expert’s thoughts to the medical information that are bound otherwise authoritative copies, or on this new expert’s own private degree, plus the expert must county the new specifics the spot where the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff is negligent. Loving v. Nash, 182 Ga. 253, 355 S.Elizabeth.2d 448 (1987).