Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co. (1997)

Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga.App. 523 , 484 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1997).

Although Saul Property’s elevator maintenance provider attributed the cause of the incident to a power surge caused by lightning, a cause disputed by Beach and Deglel, without a timely State inspection, not affected by earlier repair efforts, “plaintiffs would never be able to show what malfunctioned and caused their injuries.” Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., supra, 225 Ga. App. at 526 (1).

Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (1) ( 486 SE2d 684 ) (1997). 2 (Citations omitted.) Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 235 Ga. App. 86 ( 508 SE2d 463 ) (1998). 6 See id. 7 225 Ga. App. at 525 (1). 8 Id. at 526 (1). 9 See Clive v. Gregory, 280 Ga. App. 836, 839 ( 635 SE2d 188 ) (2006) (“[t]o obtain summary judgment, a defendant need not produce any evidence, but must only point to an absence of evidence supporting at leas…

See Welsh, 844 F.2d at 1247 ; Sweet, 895 P.2d at 491-92 ; Valcin, 507 So.2d at 600 ; Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga.App. 523 , 484 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1997).

Partnership v. Dept. of Transp., 286 Ga. App. 546, 548 (1) (b) ( 650 SE2d 277 ) (2007) (citing, among other things, OCGA§ 24-9-67.1 (b)). 13 Daubert, 509 U. S. at 590 . 14 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 524 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997). 15 See Lane, 225 Ga. App. at 525 (1); Millar Elevator Svc.

Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 524-525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997); see Millar Elevator Svc.

See Container Corp. of America v. Crosby, 535 So.2d 154, 156 (Ala.1988) (“[A] n elevator, whether passenger or freight, is a common carrier and, as such, is to be operated and maintained with the highest degree of care.”); Little Rock Land Co. v. Raper, 245 Ark. 641 , 433 S.W.2d 836, 841 (1968) (owner of elevator “has the same duty to protect passengers using his elevators from injury as do common carriers of passengers, i.e., to exercise the highest degree of skill”); Lane …

The spoliation issue in the instant case is discussed in Division 2, infra. 29 Hill J, supra. 30 See id.; Thomas v. MARTA, 300 Ga. App. 98 -102 (1) ( 684 SE2d 83 ) (2009); Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

Miller and Dillard, JJ., concur. 1 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245 (1) ( 577 SE2d 564 ) (2003), quoting Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 SE2d 474 ) (1991). 2 Based on the description by Hill’s co-worker, the subject elevator was elevator four. 3 (Emphasis supplied.) 4 Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997). 5 (Citations omitted.) Id. 6 Id. at 526 (1). …

Miller Grading Contractors v. Georgia Federal &c., 247 Ga. 730 , 733-734 (3) ( 279 SE2d 442 ) (1981); Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 527 (2) ( 484 S.E.2d 249 ) (1997). (a) Again, all of the facts presented by appellants which are contended to create material issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment relate to acts committed in 2008 in connection with the 2008 transaction.

Sav. & Loan Assn., 247 Ga. 730, 733-734 (3) ( 279 SE2d 442 ) (1981); Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 527 (2) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997). (a) Again, all of the facts presented by appellants which are contended to create material issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment relate to acts committed in 2008 in connection with the 2008 transaction.

Matthews Contracting Co., 272 Ga. App. 807, 816 (4) ( 614 SE2d 94 ) (2005). 16 See Howard v. Pope, 282 Ga. App. 137, 142-143 (2) ( 637 SE2d 854 ) (2006). 17 “Aparty may amend his pleading as a matter of course and without leave of court at any time before the entry of a pretrial order.” OCGA § 9-11-15 (a). 18 See Division 2, supra. 19 Baxley v. Hakiel Indus., 282 Ga. 312, 313 ( 647 SE2d 29 ) (2007) (citation and punctuation omitted); Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire…

Also, as argued by GIW, Quackenbush’s alleged destruction of business records might “be considered by a jury to be evidence of fraud.” See Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga.App. 523, 525 , 484 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1997).

Proof of spoliation raises “a rebuttable presumption against [the spoliator] that the evidence favored [the spoliator’s opponent], a fact rendering summary judgment inappropriate. [Cit.]” Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

Eldridge and Adams, JJ., concur. 1 (Punctuation omitted.) Paul v. Destito, 250 Ga. App. 631 ( 550 SE2d 739 ) (2001). 2 (Punctuation omitted.) Page v. CFJ Properties, 259 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 578 SE2d 522 ) (2003). 3 See Massachusetts Cotton Mills v. Hawkins, 164 Ga. 594, 596 (1) ( 139 SE 52 ) (1927); see also Seibers v. Dixie Speedway, Inc., 220 Ga. App. 811, 812-813 (1) ( 470 SE2d 452 ) (1996) (reversing grant of summary judgment on vicarious liability claim where questions …

Also, as argued by Lincoln, Swann’s destruction of business records might “be considered by a jury to be evidence of fraud.” See Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997); Fann v. Mills, 248 Ga. App. 460, 464 (2) ( 546 SE2d 853 ) (2001).

See generally as to spoliation of evidence OCGA § 24-4-22; Jones v. Krystal Co., 231 Ga. App. 102, 107 ( 498 SE2d 565 ) (1998); Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

See also Bullard v. Rolader, 152 Ga. 369, 371 (1) ( 110 SE 16 ) (1921); Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 524 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997); Helmly v. Savannah Office Bldg.

Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 527 (2) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

Banke concur. 1 “Although federal decisions are not binding on this Court, we consider their reasoning persuasive, and in the absence of pertinent Georgia authority we are free to follow it.” Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 529, n. 3 ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 524 (1), 525 ( 484 SE2d 249 ); Chapman v. Auto Owners Ins.

We equate this rule of law to the spoliation presumption that destroyed evidence would have been “unfavorable to the spoliating party.” Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 960 (Tex.1998) (Baker, J., concurring); see Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga.App. 523, 525 , 484 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1997); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 721-722 (Tex.2003).

See Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525-527 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

See Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997).

See, e.g., Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997), and cases cited therein; Henson v. Ga.-Pacific Corp., 289 Ga. App. 777, 781 (2) ( 658 SE2d 391 ) (2008). 6 To remedy the prejudice resulting from evidence of spoliation, a trial court is authorized to craft a solution that fits the facts; the court may “(1) charge the jury that spoliation of evidence creates the rebuttable presumption that the evidence would have been harmful to the spo…

See generally Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997). 2 In short, given that “the contract. . . clearly denominates the other party as an independent contractor, that relationship is presumed to be true unless the evidence shows that the employer assumed such control.” Ross, 201 Ga. App. at 891 (3). (b) Here, the undisputed evidence shows that ABM did not assume such control.

See, e.g., Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 525 (1) ( 484 SE2d 249 ) (1997) (violation of statute created presumption against spoliator).