This is the second appearance of this appeal in this Court. See Layfield v. Dept. of Transp. 1 “Layfield I “. As set forth in Layfield I , Carol Layfield as guardian of Michael Layfield has appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Department of Transportation DOT and to Everett Dykes Grassing Company Dykes on her complaint alleging negligence in the construction and resurfacing of a road where Michael lost control of his vehicle in a rainstorm and crashed into a tree. Because Michael could not remember the events associated with the accident, and because we held in Layfield I that plaintiff’s expert’s testimony as to causation was based on speculation, we concluded in Layfield I that no competent evidence supported the allegation that the water depth on the road caused the accident. Finding no evidence of proximate cause, we affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendants. Id. at 811. In Layfield v. Dept. of Transp. 2 “Layfield II “, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of this Court in Layfield I . The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony as to causation was not speculative and that therefore the element of causation was sufficiently shown to withstand summary judgment. Accordingly, we vacate our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has remanded the case with direction, instructing this Court to consider any alternative grounds set forth by the trial court for granting the motions for summary judgment. The two alternative grounds specified by the trial court were that no competent evidence showed that there were any defects in the roadway at issue and that the DOT’s acceptance of the paving project exonerated Dykes. Pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, we will now consider these alternative grounds. In doing so, we follow the well-known principle that summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. 3 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in favor of the nonmovant. Id.