Cowart v. Widener

The plaintiffs in this wrongful death case are Roby E. Cowart, Sr.’s estate and his two adult children. The defendants are Cowart’s brother-in-law Nathan Lee Widener, the trucking company for which Widener drove, and the company’s insurance carrier. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants after concluding that the plaintiffs could not establish that Widener proximately caused Cowart’s death without producing expert evidence, which they had failed to do. The Court of Appeals affirmed. See Cowart v. Widener , 296 Ga. App. 712 675 SE2d 591 2009. We granted certiorari, posing two questions: 1 whether expert evidence is required to establish causation in a simple negligence case where a medical question is involved; and 2 if so, what constitutes a “medical question” so as to require such expert testimony. As explained in Division 2 below, expert evidence typically is not required to prove causation in a simple negligence case. See, e.g., Self v. Exec. Comm. of the Ga. Baptist Convention of Ga., Inc. , 245 Ga. 548, 549 266 SE2d 168 1980. However, expert evidence is required where a “medical question” involving truly specialized medical knowledge rather than the sort of medical knowledge that is within common understanding and experience is needed to establish a causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury. See, e.g., Gilbert v. R.J. Taylor Mem. Hosp. , 265 Ga. 580, 581 & n.4 458 SE2d 341 1995 whether the plaintiff actually had cancer that required treatment; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sutton , 290 Ga. App. 154, 160 658 SE2d 909 2008 whether exposure to mold caused the plaintiffs’ respiratory ailments.

This is an unusual wrongful death case because the plaintiffs do not allege that Widener caused the internal bleeding that killed Cowart, but rather that Widener failed to render aid to Cowart in a way that would have prevented his death. As we discuss in Division 3 below, the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence —ordinary and expert —showing causation under these unusual circumstances, and therefore the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants.