Following the denial of their motion for summary judgment, defendants Jamie Ray and Marie Hunsucker filed this interlocutory appeal, contending that the trial court erred by concluding that material issues of fact remain as to Wanda Belford’s claims against them for wrongful death and negligent entrustment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.1 So viewed, the record shows that shortly after 8:00 p.m. on an evening in February of 2008, Jamie Ray Hunsucker left his son’s birthday party to drive three children home. By that time of the evening, it was dark, and there was “misting” rain. Less than a mile into the journey, Hunsucker crested a hill traveling at the 45 miles-per-hour speed limit and immediately “caught a glimpse” of a pedestrian, Randy Belford, stepping into Hunsucker’s lane of travel from the middle of the road. Hunsucker’s car collided with Belford, killing him. As a result of the collision, the car’s windshield was broken, the steering wheel was bent, and Hunsucker’s wrist was injured. Surviving spouse Wanda Belford filed a wrongful death claim against Jamie Ray Hunsucker and a negligent entrustment claim against his mother, Marie Hunsucker, with whom Jamie lived and whose car he was driving. The Hunsuckers unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, and after the trial court entered a certificate of immediate review, we granted the Hunsuckers’ application for interlocutory review.
The Hunsuckers contend that the trial court erred by concluding that material issues of fact remain as to whether Jamie was negligent by driving too fast for conditions, not keeping a proper lookout, and failing to avoid hitting Belford. We agree. To state a cause of action for negligence in Georgia, a plaintiff must show 1 a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; 2 a breach of this standard; 3 a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and 4 loss or damage to plaintiff’s legally protected interest resulting from the breach.2 Under our law, a defendant may prevail at summary judgment by demonstrating “that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.”3 This may be done “by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff’s case.”4 “If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.”5 “Although issues of negligence are generally left to the jury, in cases where the alleged negligent conduct is susceptible to only one inference, the question becomes a matter of law for the court to determine.”6
