(Citations omitted.) Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 739 (1) ( 589 SE2d 303) (2003). See also Davis v. Sykes, 265 Ga. App. 375, 376 (1) ( 593 SE2d 859) (2004).
" (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Allen Kane's Major Dodge, Inc. v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776, 781 ( 257 SE2d 186) (1979). If the circumstantial evidence raises only a mere conjecture as to the conclusion sought, there can be no recovery. Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 740 ( 589 SE2d 303) (2003). Ken Thomas presented evidence that it repaired the car after it was damaged in the first accident, and that it diligently maintained the car while it was used as a loaner for over two years until the present accident.
Given the evidence in the record, the two cases cited by defendants in support of summary judgment are inapposite. See Berry v. Hamilton, 246 Ga.App. 608, 541 S.E.2d 428 (2000) and Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga.App. 737, 589 S.E.2d 303 (2003). In Berry and Dawkins, the courts granted summary judgment in wrongful death traffic collision cases because there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the motorists involved and barely enough evidence to raise a conjecture as to how the decedents died. Berry, 246 Ga.App. at 609, 541 S.E.2d 428 and Dawkins, 263 Ga.App. at 739, 589 S.E.2d 303.
Given the evidence in the record, the two cases cited by defendants in support of summary judgment are inapposite. See Berry v. Hamilton, 246 Ga. App. 608 (2000) and Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737 (2003). In Berry and Dawkins, the courts granted summary judgment in wrongful death traffic collision cases because there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the motorists involved and barely enough evidence to raise a conjecture as to how the decedents died. Berry, 246 Ga. App. at 609 and Dawkins, 263 Ga. App. at 739.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 740 (1) ( 589 SE2d 303) (2003). It follows that the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict to DMC.
" See OCGA § 33-7-11 (c); Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 737-738, n. 2 ( 589 SE2d 303) (2003). OCGA § 40-6-273.
Trooper Johnson also stated that the emergency lane was for emergencies and that, in his opinion, seeing an accident in front of you and stopping to see if people are injured is such an emergency. See Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 738, n. 3 ( 589 SE2d 303) (2003). 2. Reid's second, third, and fourth enumerations of error deal with the trial court's conclusion that Yingst was not shown to be negligent, and are considered together.
While this evidence is circumstantial, it is adequate to support a reasonable inference that the Prime truck hit Serrano, especially where defendant has provided no conflicting evidence. See Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 739 (2003) (circumstantial evidence is acceptable but "must be sufficient to raise a reasonable inference" as to causation) and Shepherd v. Holmes, 184 Ga. App. 648, 649 (1987) (circumstantial evidence may raise a reasonable inference where it is "unrebutted by positive evidence"). 2.
5. The Plaintiff's Claim for NegligenceTo state a cause of action for negligence under Georgia law, a plaintiff must prove the following: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) some loss or damage resulting from the alleged breach of duty. Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 738 (2003). The complaint states that the "Defendants had a duty to act in a fair and reasonable manner when dealing with Plaintiff with respect to all issues related to the Note and the Security Deed."
Likewise, the claims against Pendergast for negligence are not colorable because the Plaintiff has not shown that Pendergast owed him a duty. To state a cause of action for negligence under Georgia law, the plaintiff must prove the following: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) some loss or damage resulting from the alleged breach of duty. Dawkins v. Doe, 263 Ga. App. 737, 738 (2003). Here, as discussed, the Plaintiff has not shown that Pendergast owed him any duty.