After his 1994 Chrysler LSH spun out of control and struck a steel pole in a single-car accident, Booker T. Smith brought a personal injury suit against Liberty Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc. Liberty and Daimler Chrysler Corp. Chrysler for injuries he sustained. The trial court granted summary judgment to Liberty and Chrysler, finding that Smith’s experts’ opinions as to the cause of the accident were based upon speculation and conjecture. In these cases now consolidated for appeal, Smith appeals from the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm, but we do so for a different reason: because Smith’s experts were not qualified to render an opinion as to the cause of the accident. On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Hudson v. Swain , 282 Ga. App. 718, 719 639 SE2d 319 2006. “To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate 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.” Citation omitted. Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins , 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991.
Viewed in this light, the record reveals that Smith purchased a used Chrysler LSH from Liberty with an odometer reading of 46,247 miles. Over one year later, on November 3, 1998, around 11:30 a.m., Smith was driving the vehicle in the drizzling rain when it suddenly accelerated and the steering wheel locked, causing Smith to lose control and the vehicle to spin around several times before hitting a steel pole. Smith deposed that he was not using the vehicle’s cruise control and that he was driving under the speed limit.
