We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in these cases to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellants HNTB Georgia, Inc. HNTB and Plant Improvement Company d/b/a Seaboard Construction Company Seaboard. See Hamilton-King v. HNTB Georgia , 296 Ga. App. 864 676 SE2d 287 2009. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. Appellees Lakeisha Hamilton-King and her brother Justin Hamilton were injured when they were struck by a van in a bridge construction zone on Interstate 95 in south Georgia. Their brother Johnny was killed in the same accident. All three had exited their vehicle after they were involved in a separate collision and their car became disabled on the bridge. A police officer who stopped to help displayed his emergency signals and attempted to slow traffic traveling onto the bridge where appellees were standing. The van, allegedly traveling at a speed close to 70 miles per hour on the darkened interstate highway, did not slow down as it approached the accident site and struck appellees. Justin and Lakeisha, in both her individual capacity and as the administrator of Johnny’s estate, sued HNTB, the designer of the bridge-widening project, and Seaboard, the general contractor, for negligence, specifically alleging, inter alia, that HNTB and Seaboard failed to include shoulders in their traffic control plans and failed to implement proper lighting in the bridge construction zone.
Prior to trial, HNTB and Seaboard filed motions to exclude expert testimony challenging the qualifications of appellees’ expert witness, Jerome Thomas, a licensed engineer. They asserted both that Thomas lacked the education and experience to testify about construction design standards and that his proffered testimony failed to meet the reliability requirements of OCGA § 24-9-67.1. The trial court granted their motions to exclude and in the absence of admissible expert testimony establishing the standard of care and breach thereof, the trial court also granted their subsequent motions for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Thomas’ testimony based on its too “rigid” application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , 509 U.579 113 SC 2786, 125 LE2d 469 1993, a case identifying certain factors relevant in determining the reliability of expert testimony. See Mason v. Home Depot USA , 283 Ga. 271 658 SE2d 603 2008 trial court’s application of Daubert standards upheld in Georgia case because OCGA §is based on Federal Rule 702, which is based on the holding of Daubert . See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.137, 141 119 SC 1167, 143 LE2d 238 1999 applying Daubert standard to all expert testimony.
