Background
Blair Huntley sued Onika Miller for injuries allegedly sustained when Miller rear-ended Huntley at a red light in Cobb County. Miller admitted fault for the collision and received a citation for following too closely, but disputed Huntley’s claimed injuries and damages. Huntley also sought litigation expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11.
After discovery, Miller moved for partial summary judgment on the attorney-fees claim, arguing there was no evidence of bad faith in the underlying collision. Huntley pointed to Miller’s testimony that she drove without prescription glasses despite an astigmatism that impaired her sight and her eye doctor’s instruction to wear the glasses while driving. Huntley’s counsel did not appear for the summary-judgment hearing, and the trial court granted Miller’s motion based on the nonappearance and “good cause” under USCR 5.1.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. A party’s failure to attend a summary-judgment hearing does not permit a “default summary judgment”; the movant still must establish no genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. USCR 5.1 concerns compulsory discovery process, not the standard or procedure for deciding summary judgment.
The court also declined to affirm on the merits. Viewing the evidence for Huntley, a jury could find that Miller made an affirmative decision to drive despite knowing her impaired vision prevented her from accurately judging distance from other vehicles. That evidence could support a finding of conscious indifference to consequences—and thus bad faith under OCGA § 13-6-11—rather than mere negligence.
Key Takeaways
- Nonappearance at a summary-judgment hearing cannot by itself justify granting the motion.
- USCR 5.1 governs compulsory discovery process and does not supply a basis for summary judgment.
- Driving without medically prescribed corrective lenses despite known vision impairment may create a jury question on bad-faith attorney fees.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Georgia courts must decide summary-judgment motions under OCGA § 9-11-56(c), even when opposing counsel does not attend the hearing. It also applies the Supreme Court of Georgia’s recent bad-faith standard to evidence of a driver’s knowing visual impairment.
For tort litigants, the case illustrates the distinction between an ordinary traffic violation and evidence that may permit a jury to find reckless disregard of known harmful consequences.