The Court of Appeals erred in finding that an ordinary negligence instruction was authorized by evidence that a doctor defendant responded inadequately to medical data provided by certain medical equipment during a medical procedure and thus erred in affirming a nearly $22 million award following the trial court's erroneous jury instruction on ordinary negligence.

Insurer was entitled to summary judgment in plaintiff's action seeking uninsured motorist coverage from his fiancs parents automobile insurance carrier.

The trial court partially erred in granting summary judgment to medical defendants in plaintiffs' medical malpractice action because whether defendants were entitled to the benefit of the heightened evidentiary burden of the emergency medical care statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-1-29.5, depended on disputed issues of fact.

The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude certain deposition testimony the medical malpractice plaintiff sought to admit as an admission against interest, because plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the evidence was admissible.