Sidney Eudy was a professional wrestler who performed under the name “Sid Vicious.” In 1999, he entered into a three-year contract with World Championship Wrestling, Inc. “WCW”. On January 14, 2001, Eudy performed a move that had been choreographed for him by a WCW employee and suffered compound fractures of his left tibia and fibula. WCW subsequently reduced Eudy’s pay and then terminated his contract as of June 2001. Eudy sued the company, now owned by Universal Wrestling Corporation, along with Turner Sports, Inc., Turner Entertainment Group, Inc. and John Laurinaitis, who choreographed the wrestling match collectively “WCW”. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in part and denied in part. Eudy appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against him in Appeal Number A04A2059, contending that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contractual relations, and attorney fees. WCW appeals the denial of summary judgment to it in Appeal Number A04A2060 on Eudy’s claims for breach of an oral agreement and unjust enrichment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order in Appeal Number A04A2059, and affirm in part and reverse in part the order in Appeal Number A04A2060.
On appeal we review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact. Desai v. Silver Dollar City, Inc. , 229 Ga. App. 160, 163 1 493 SE2d 540 1997. Summary judgment is proper only when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Preferred Real Estate Equities v. Housing Systems , 248 Ga. App. 745 548 SE2d 646 2001. Further, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must give the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the evidence and all inferences and conclusions therefrom must be construed most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp. , 187 Ga. App. 594, 595-596 370 SE2d 843 1988. On motions for summary judgment, however, courts cannot resolve the facts or reconcile the issues. Fletcher v. Amax, Inc. , 160 Ga. App. 692, 695 288 SE2d 49 1981.
