How Does a Plaintiff Prove Negligence in an Accident with a City Truck?
The Georgia Court of Appeals heard a second issue in this personal injury action stemming from a car-truck accident. In 2022, the Court vacated the trial court’s order denial the City of Sandersville’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether a City truck’s hazard lights were flashing at the time of the accident.
On remand, the City filed a renewed motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. In this appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by granting that motion.
Background
On the morning of June 22, 2018, two City employees were driving a giant garbage truck, also known as a “boom truck.” It was over eight feet tall and eight feet wide. The workers were on their route to collect yard waste from residents. The weather that morning was clear and dry, and the truck traveled eastbound on a straight, flat section of West Church Street. At 8:20am, the driver activated the truck’s flashing hazard lights and stopped on the road at a West Church Street address to collect some yard waste. As the truck stopped, the other employee got out on the passenger side to collect the tree limbs and leaves.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff—who was driving her SUV with her young daughter in the back seat—was also heading eastbound on West Church Street. For some reason, she didn’t see the boom truck, and just after it stopped, her SUV collided into the rear of the truck without braking or even slowing down. She suffered a serious injury to her arm and lost consciousness. And just as her SUV was about to catch fire, one of the city employees pulled the girl from the SUV. The boom truck driver and a third City employee—who happened to be driving by at the time—got the plaintiff out before she suffered any further injuries. A fire engine soon arrived to put out the fire, and an ambulance took the plaintiff to the hospital.
After the accident, the City truck driver and the passenger noticed that the boom truck’s hazard lights were still flashing.
About an hour after the collision, a Georgia State Patrol officer arrived to investigate. He noticed that the boom truck’s rear was damaged and that its hazard lights had been destroyed and weren’t flashing.
As for the plaintiff’s vehicle, based on the damage, the trooper didn’t think she was speeding more than the 45 mph speed limit, but he couldn’t definitively explain why she failed to see the boom truck—beyond guessing that she was following too closely and the morning sun may have been in her eyes.
Court of Appeals
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by granting the City’s motion.
Presiding Judge Brian M. Rickman noted that the Court of Appeals previously noted that “a grant of summary judgment must be affirmed if it is right for any reason, whether stated or unstated in the trial court’s order, so long as the movant raised the issue in the trial court and the nonmovant had a fair opportunity to respond.”
As the Court pointed out, it’s a well-established principle that “merely because an accident occurred and a plaintiff suffered injury establishes no basis for recovery unless the plaintiff comes forward with evidence showing that the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence.”
The plaintiff argued that there was a jury question whether the City was negligent in requiring its employee to park in the roadway while collecting yard waste. However, the judge said she failed to provide any affirmative evidence that the City was negligent. Judge Rickman explained that O.C.G.A. § 40-6-203(c) expressly authorizes municipal vehicles to stop on the road to collect waste:
Any vehicle used solely for the purpose of collecting municipal solid waste or recovered materials as defined in Code Section 12-8-22 may stop or stand on the road, street, or highway for the sole purpose of collecting such waste or materials; provided, however, that such vehicle shall maintain flashing hazard lights at all times that it is engaged in stopping or standing for the purpose of waste or materials collection.
Citing a 2004 Court of Appeals decision, the plaintiff argued that complying with O.C.G.A. § 406-203(c) didn’t insulate the City from a negligence claim. But Judge Rickman explained that the current case was distinguishable from that 2004 Ochoa decision because in the earlier case, the garbage truck at issue stopped near the top of a downhill slope, partly on and off the roadway. There, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court didn’t err by admitting evidence regarding a safer location for the stop. The accident victim was riding in a car driven by his father, and as they crested a hill, they encountered the truck stopped in the roadway. The father was unable to avoid a collision, and the car struck the truck. The truck driver testified to the following:
- He’d pulled the truck to the side of the road to pick up recyclables;
- The truck was parked partly on and off the roadway; and
- The truck’s flashing lights were on.
In Ochoa, the driver and the employer argued that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence relating to whether the driver could’ve stopped the garbage truck in a safer location, and that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that if the truck’s flashing hazard lights were on at the time of the collision, then pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-6-203(c), the workers employer couldn’t have been found negligent. The Court of Appeals ruled that O.C.G.A. § 40-6-203(c) didn’t insulate a waste disposal company from liability for negligence claims. As such, the trial court didn’t err in admitting evidence as to a safer location for the stop or in refusing to instruct the jury that such compliance was ordinary care.
In contrast, in this case, it was inexplicable why the plaintiff didn’t see the huge boom truck parked on a straight, flat section of the street. The trooper who investigated the accident said he couldn’t explain why the plaintiff didn’t see the truck beyond opining that she may have been following too closely or the sun could’ve been in her eyes. Because there was no evidence showing negligence on the part of the City, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Usry v. City of Sandersville, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 67 (Ga. App. February 21, 2025).
Contact Us
Work with a law firm that has years of success in claims against cities and counties. Call our law firm at 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or use our online contact form to arrange your free consultation. Our experienced staff will explain the steps in the process of seeking compensation for your injuries in a motor vehicle claim against a municipality. Our attorneys will help you understand your legal options, and we will fight hard to get you the compensation you need and deserve.