Age.2d 448 (1987)

– Considering the disagreement between the experts’ testimony regarding the an evidently hazardous condition, and inferences become drawn in the absence of earlier injuries, an issue of facts is obtainable if or not a faulty standing existed and this the fresh new accused, on the exercise out-of normal care in keeping new defendant’s premise secure in the over 30 years brand new offender enjoys possessed new premise, realized otherwise need to have known create produce harm to a keen invitee. Haire v. Town of Macon, 200 Ga. Application. 744, 409 S.Age.2d 670, cert. refused, two hundred Ga. Application. 896, 409 S.Age.2d 670 (1991).

– During the a situation where in actuality the issue is whether certainly brand new functions encountered the requisite mental power to build a binding agreement, viewpoint facts cannot approve the brand new offer of summation view you to eg cluster is skilled. McCraw v. Watkins, 242 Ga. 452, 249 S.Age.2d 202 (1978).

– Genuine dilemma of simple truth is perhaps not increased because of the seller’s own affidavit to what value of property for the a suit getting particular results. Baker v. Jellibeans, Inc., 252 Ga. 458, 314 S.Age.2d 874 (1984).

– In the event the respondent data an affidavit stating the new respondent’s thoughts one the wedding is not irretrievably busted and this you’ll find genuine applicants to possess reconciliation, upcoming realization wisdom should be denied. Bryan v. Bryan, 248 Ga. 312, 282 S.E.2d 892 (1981).

In view of expectation that legal counsel are executed during the a standard skillful trend, the fresh new movant will then be required to develop an enthusiastic expert’s affidavit, unless there’s “obvious and palpable” negligence. Rose v. Rollins, 167 Ga. Software. 469, 306 S.Elizabeth.2d 724 (1983).

Age.2d 433 (1987)

– From inside the a task against a beneficial tavern manager occurring from an enthusiastic so-called power because of the one to patron up on another, statements from the user’s affidavit the proprietor didn’t come with reason can be expected those things of patron and therefore the proprietor could not by do it out of practical care are finding otherwise avoided burns was in fact results hit to your greatest facts become felt like and could not be used on a summary view motion. Johnson v. Teams, 165 Ga. App. 43, 299 S.Elizabeth.2d 99 (1983).

– During the good widow’s allege against a forest-planting business into the business’s failure to declaration an abandoned well as required by the O.C.G.A. § 44-1-fourteen, Lettiska singlar presumably leading to her husband’s dying when he drove over the better inside the a four-wheeler, summary view is actually right as widow’s circumstantial research from an professional your company are familiar with new better on account of a deviation from the row from trees at the well’s location cannot defeat the business’s direct facts that team did maybe not know about the new well. Handberry v. Manning Forestry Servs., LLC, 353 Ga. Software. 150, 836 S.Age.2d 545 (2019).

– Plaintiff during the a health malpractice case try not to prevail for the a motion to own realization judgment because of the just to provide a good conclusory advice the accused is negligent or failed to adhere to the latest elite group fundamental. Plaintiff need state the latest details and you will establish the variables of your own acceptable elite make and put onward exactly how or even in exactly what way the latest accused deviated therefrom. Loving v. Nash, 182 Ga. App. 253, 355 S.Elizabeth.2d 448 (1987); Connell v. Way, 183 Ga. App. 871, 360 S.

– Getting adequate to controvert this new defendant’s specialist opinion and build an issue of truth into the a medical malpractice circumstances, new plaintiff’s professional must base the fresh new expert’s viewpoint toward medical ideas which can be sworn otherwise formal duplicates, or on the new expert’s own personal knowledge, while the expert need condition brand new details where the defendant’s therapy of the latest plaintiff is negligent. Loving v. Nash, 182 Ga. Application. 253, 355 S.