Can a Homeowner Testify that an Ambulance was Speeding When it Hits a Lawnmower Crossing the Road?
An accident victim recently appealed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the driver of an ambulance and the hospital (the owner/operator of an ambulance) in a case arising from an accident involving an ambulance and a riding lawnmower. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because questions of material fact existed as to whether the ambulance driver was speeding, whether the ambulance driver should have seen and avoided the collision, and whether the plaintiff acted in a prudent manner when he chose to cross the street with his lawnmower.
Background
In September 2019, the plaintiff, while riding a lawnmower, tried to cross a public road at an intersection. The ambulance was traveling on the street that the plaintiff tried to cross. The area where the collision happened is a dark and not well-lit. According to the plaintiff, he drove down the road, made a complete stop when he reached the stop sign at the intersection, looked both ways, sat there for a minute or two to make sure no traffic was coming, didn’t see any traffic, and “cut into the … center lane,” attempting to cross the street. The ambulance driver said that he didn’t see the plaintiff on his lawnmower until it was too late to avoid the crash. The ambulance struck the lawnmower, and the plaintiff was thrown. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries and was life flighted to a hospital in Tallahassee, Florida.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against the ambulance driver and the hospital. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff couldn’t show that the driver was negligent or violated any traffic laws and that his own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The plaintiff responded and submitted an affidavit from a witness who was standing on the sidewalk in front of his yard and saw the collision. The witness said he saw the plaintiff heading home on his lawnmower, saw him stop and look both ways before proceeding, and “noticed a truck that came from the highway and appeared to be speeding, and the driver of the truck was on his phone.” The bystander said that he thought the collision happened “because the driver was speeding and was on his phone not paying attention.”
In his deposition, the bystander stated that the speed limit on the road was 45 miles per hour, and he could tell the ambulance was traveling “over 45 because you could tell he was just over 45,” but he couldn’t tell exactly how fast the vehicle was going. He just knew the ambulance driver was speeding, like many motorist do on that road. The plaintiff deposed that he never saw the ambulance driver holding the phone until he got out of the van; he only believed the ambulance driver was holding the phone while he was driving because he had it in his hand when he got out of the ambulance after the accident.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the ambulance driver and the hospital. In support of its finding that there was no evidence that the ambulance driver was negligent and no evidence to submit the case against the defendants to a jury, the trial court concluded:
Plaintiff’s lone allegation is that The ambulance driver was negligent — there is no affirmative proof or sufficient allegation that The ambulance driver did anything wrong. In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that the only wrong thing that Mr. The ambulance driver did was hit him. Plaintiff has produced no evidence that Mr. The ambulance driver failed to maintain proper lookout or use due care.
After discussing the discrepancies in the bystander’s affidavit and deposition as to the ambulance driver being on his phone, the trial court said that the plaintiff didn’t specify—and the evidence didn’t show—that the ambulance driver violated any Georgia statutes or other laws in relation to the subject collision. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals Reverses
Judge Ken Hodges wrote for the panel of the Court of Appeals that to state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, a plaintiff must establish four elements: duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. The judge stressed that Georgia courts strongly disfavor taking the issue of negligence away from the jury’s consideration.
Negligence is not susceptible to summary adjudication except where the evidence is plain, palpable, and indisputable that the respondent cannot present any slight evidence on each essential element of the action in rebuttal to create a jury issue. Questions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause are peculiarly matters for the jury, and a court should not take the place of the jury in solving them, except in plain and indisputable cases.
Questions regarding causation are questions for the jury except in clear, plain, palpable and undisputed cases. The facts in this case weren’t so “clear, plain, palpable and undisputed” so as to warrant summary judgment in favor of the ambulance driver and the hospital on liability.
Indeed, the trial court’s conclusions that there was no evidence that the ambulance driver was negligent and that the evidence didn’t show that the ambulance driver violated any traffic laws in relation to the collision can’t be reconciled with the evidence in the record when it’s viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Judge Hodges observed. Specifically, without considering if the bystander’s affidavit and deposition were enough to support an inference that the ambulance driver was on his phone while driving, the bystander stated in his affidavit and testified in his deposition that the driver was speeding and that he believed that was the cause of the collision. However, the trial court didn’t address this evidence in its order.
Judge Hodges explained that it’s well settled that—
Where the question under examination, and to be decided by the jury, shall be one of opinion, any witness may swear to his opinion or belief, giving his reasons therefor. In addition, it has long been the rule in this State that where the relevancy or competency of evidence is doubtful, it should be admitted and its weight left to the determination of the jury.
The judge added that these principles apply to a lay witness giving his opinion about the speed of a vehicle and noted:
It is not held to be objectionable to allow a witness to testify to his opinion of the speed of a horse, a train of cars, and various movable objects. The jury can give this opinion just such weight as they think proper, judging it by the circumstances and the opportunities enjoyed by the witness for forming a correct opinion. And the witness may offer such speed as his estimate, although he refuses to swear positively that his estimate of the speed is absolutely accurate, where it appears that he believes it to be substantially correct, the credit to be given such testimony being for the jury.
In the past, the Court of Appeals has ruled that it wasn’t error for the trial court to allow the defendant to give his estimate of the plaintiff’s speed, even though he had only had a “glimpse” of the vehicle. The observation time upon which the testimony of a witness as to speed is based is a factor for the jury to consider in weighing the testimony of the witness and doesn’t affect its admissibility.
Here, the record showed that the bystander lived near the scene of the collision, and he knew the speed limit on the road where the collision occurred. Moreover, he frequently saw cars speeding on that road, and he opined that the ambulance driver was traveling over the speed limit when he collided with the plaintiff. Because Georgia follows the comparative negligence doctrine, and there was some evidence that the ambulance driver may have been at least partially at fault for the incident, summary judgment wasn’t appropriate at this point. Quoting an earlier decision, Judge Hodges said:
We must remember that it is the jury, not the court, which is the fact-finding body. It weighs the contradictory evidence and inferences, judges the credibility of witnesses, receives expert instructions, and draws the ultimate conclusion as to the facts. The very essence of its function is to select from among conflicting inferences and conclusions that which it considers most reasonable. The sole function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. And even slight evidence giving rise to a triable issue of material fact will suffice to defeat summary judgment.
Such evidence exists here, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as is required in considering the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants given the bystander’s testimony that the ambulance driver was speeding at the time of the collision. The judgment reversed. Johnson v. Wood, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 413 *; 2025 LX 452194; 2025 WL 2715888 (Ga. App. September 24, 2025).
What our Atlanta personal injury law firm does
Having a knowledgeable Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust who has extensive experience in handling auto accident cases every day really does make a difference. Whomever you hire as your personal injury car accident lawyer must understand Georgia law and how to apply the state’s personal injury laws effectively. Our experienced Atlanta based personal injury law firm is happy to answer your questions. We offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).