Supra. 240 Ga. App. 464 ( 523 SE2d 340) (1999). See Hubbard, supra at 348-349 (2) (c).
Such affidavit requirement applies to a malpractice action against an engineering professional. Kneip v. Southern Engineering Co., 260 Ga. 409 (2) ( 395 S.E.2d 809) (1990); Dept. of Transp. v. Cushway, 240 Ga. App. 464, 466 ( 523 S.E.2d 340) (1999); Jackson v. Dept. of Transp., 201 Ga. App. 863, 865-866 ( 412 S.E.2d 847) (1991). An expert's affidavit that satisfies this section does not have to unequivocally demonstrate the evidentiary merits of the malpractice claim unless or until the defendant moves for summary judgment and submits evidence demonstrating the plaintiff's claim lacks merit, and may rest upon evidentiary conclusions.
"[T]he MUTCD contains standards that fall into mandatory, advisory, and permissive categories." DOT v. Cushway, 240 Ga. App. 464, 465 ( 523 S.E.2d 340) (1999). This Court has recognized that "[t]he MUTCD is not `the exclusive source of engineering and design standards' especially as to permissive and advisory instructions."
Such affidavit requirement applies to a malpractice action against an engineering professional. Kneip v. Southern Eng'g Co., 260 Ga. 409 (2) ( 395 S.E.2d 809) (1990); Dept. of Transp. v. Cushway, 240 Ga. App. 464, 466 ( 523 S.E.2d 340) (1999); Jackson v. DOT, 201 Ga. App. 863, 865-866 ( 412 S.E.2d 847) (1991). An expert's affidavit that satisfies this section does not have to unequivocally demonstrate the evidentiary merits of the malpractice claim unless or until the defendant moves for summary judgment and submits evidence demonstrating the plaintiff's claim lacks merit, and may rest upon evidentiary conclusions.