In this tragic wrongful death action, Chante Amos, as the administrator of her daughter Janae Michelle Amos’ estate, appeals from the trial courts order granting summary judgment to Creative Consulting Services, Inc., and Yvette Walcott (collectively “CCS”). On appeal, Amos argues that the trial court erred by granting CCS’ motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain on her negligence claims. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain on Amos’ negligence claims, and we therefore reverse the trial courts order granting summary judgment to CCS.
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. On appeal from a trial courts grant of summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review, construing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
(Citation omitted.) Trico Environmental Svcs., Inc. v. Knight Petroleum Co., 357 Ga. App. 826, 827, 849 S.E.2d 538 (2020). We emphasize that “[t]he party opposing summary judgment is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.” (Citation omitted.) Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74, 75, 751 S.E.2d 288 (2013). And we have long held that “[i]f there be any conflict in the evidence as to some material fact even within the testimony of the same witness the granting of a summary judgment is not proper.” Griffin v. Bremen Steel Co., Inc., 161 Ga. App. 768, 770 (2), 288 S.E.2d 874 (1982). See also Montgomery v. Barrow, 286 Ga. 896, 898 (1), 692 S.E.2d 351 (2010) (stating that where “there are bits of evidence in the record which create genuine issues of material fact ․ summary judgment is not appropriate[.]”) (emphasis supplied).
So viewed, the record shows that Creative Consulting Services, Inc., provides support coordination and intensive support coordination services for individuals with developmental disabilities.
1
The role of a support coordinator is to oversee and monitor the direct services that a provider gives to a client and to visit with their assigned client on a monthly or quarterly basis. Individuals who are serviced by Creative Consulting receive funding from the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (“DBHDD”), which establishes rules, regulations and oversight “for the care of the client in need.” DBHDD “expects,” and Creative Consulting requires, support coordinators to use the Individual Quality Outcome Measure Review (“IQOMR”), which is a document containing more than 50 questions to evaluate quality of the care being provided to the client. The questions include:
(20) Are all staff knowledgeable about all information contained within the individuals ISP?[2]
(23) Are all staff knowledgeable about all of the individuals healthcare plans?
(24) Are indicated healthcare plans being implemented?
(28) Are all physician/clinical recommendations being followed?
(29) Are all prescribed medications being administered, as ordered, and documented accurately?
(30) Are all required assessments/evaluations completed?
(31) Has the individual had any hospital admissions, emergency room, or urgent care visits since the last review?
(35) Are supports and services being delivered to the individual, as identified in the current ISP?
Creative Consultings executive director testified that as part of the support coordinators completion of the IQOMR, the support coordinator was “expected” to review the documents kept by the provider. DBHDDs rules also provide that support coordinators “[r]eview any pertinent documentation” related to the IQOMR questions. The executive director also testified that as part of the support coordinators completion of the IQOMR, the support coordinator was expected to examine documentation relating to the facilitys staffing.
When conducting monitoring visits of a client, DBHDDs rules authorize a support coordinator to issue a coaching or referral if any issues or concerns are found in the providers care after completing the IQOMR questions. A coaching is an instruction given to a provider to correct an issue or deficit in care. A referral occurs when a provider has not complied with the coaching, or if the support coordinator identifies an “urgent risk of a non-clinical nature” and the plan to correct the deficit is insufficient compared to the urgency of the risk. DBHDD then reviews the referral and takes additional action if necessary.
Creative Consulting was the support coordination agency since 2006 for Janae Amos, Chante Amos’ daughter, and Walcott, who was employed by Creative Consulting, was Janaes support coordinator and visited Janae on a monthly basis to “oversee her care.” In 2018, Janae was 23 years old, was developmentally disabled, and was diagnosed with cerebral palsy, failure to thrive, epilepsy, and scoliosis. She was also nonverbal, nonmobile, and incontinent; she needed constant care and assistance with “everything.” Walcott knew that Janae had a prior incident of aspiration, and Janaes ISP required a thickener, “Thick-It,” to be added to her liquids to prevent her from choking which could lead to aspiration and death.
On October 7, 2018, Janae was moved from her home to Dollys Personal Care Home, Inc. (“DPC”), a community residential alternative group home. Walcott visited Janae at a day program hosted by DPC on October 15, 2018, and she subsequently visited Janae at DPC on October 27, 2018. Walcott stated that DPC did not have many records regarding Janae because she had recently moved into the home, but Walcott did not observe any issues or detect any problems that would have required her to issue a coaching or a referral. Walcott also stated that she reviewed Janaes records and all of the documentation present at DPC, that Janaes Medical Administration Record (“MAR”) was up to date, that Janaes ISP, which required that two people assist with lifting and transferring Janae and that Thick-It be added to all of her liquids, was present at the home, and that the staff informed her that Thick-It was being given to Janae. Laura Morgan, a residential technician at DPC who was responsible for attending to the residents at the home, signed Janaes ISP and affirmed that she had been trained on Janaes ISP and would comply with the information contained therein. Morgan later stated, however, that she never used Thick-It in Janaes liquids or medication and that “no one ever told her about it.” Moreover, although Walcott deposed that it would “concern” her if DPC did not document the administration of Thick-It to Janae and that she would ordinarily check a facilitys records for this information, she could not recall whether she reviewed DPCs documentation pertaining to Thick-It. Specifically, when pressed as to whether she checked DPCs records for the administration of Thick-It to Janae, Walcott responded, “when I visit, unless I see it, if they say were putting it in there, that is what I go by. She was not being fed at the time or drinking anything at the time of the visit so that would not be something that I would hone in on right away.” Walcott also acknowledged that, although her role as a support coordinator authorizes her to examine the records kept by a facility regarding a client, she could not recall whether she asked to review all of DPCs records regarding Janae.
On November 20, 2018, Morgan, the only staff member present at DPC that evening, fed Janae and gave her juice to drink between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., and put her to bed around 8:00 p.m. Morgan checked on Janae around 8:40 p.m. and saw that she “was sleeping and ok.” When Morgan checked on Janae again at 9:20 p.m., she was unresponsive and vomit covered her nose and mouth, and Morgan called 911. EMS personnel responded to the home and observed Janae lying in a supine position in bed and that Morgan was not performing CPR. EMS personnel then moved Janae to the floor and began manual CPR compressions. When questioned by EMS personnel, Morgan could not advise of Janaes medical conditions, nor could she explain Janaes general health, medications, or whether a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) existed. Janae was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where she was admitted to the intensive care unit and treated for aspiration pneumonia, but she died the next day. Janaes cause of death was listed as myocardial arrest as a consequence of respiratory failure due to aspiration pneumonia, and her death was classified as natural. Due to Janaes passing, Walcott was unable to complete a monthly review for November 2018.
DBHDD conducted a clinical mortality investigation on December 21, 2018, and as part of its investigation, it compiled a report regarding Janaes care during her time at DPC. DBHDD also reviewed DPCs residential services progress notes from October 7, 2018, to November 20, 2018, which contained documentation concerning Janaes meals during that time period. It conducted interviews with DPCs residential technicians who cared for Janae, specifically confronted them for not documenting any administration of Thick-It to Janae, and concluded that DPC was deficient for failing to document this information. DBHDD also noted that Janaes ISP required that her liquids be mixed with Thick-It, and that after Janaes visit with her primary care doctor on October 31, 2018, he ordered that Thick-It be used in her medications. DBHDD found, however, that Janaes MAR was not updated after her October 31, 2018 visit with her primary care doctor, and that seven doses of Robitussin were given to her between November 12, 2018, and November 19, 2018, without Thick-It. Additionally, DBHDD noted that Morgan admitted that she “did not mix Thick-It in the water or juice” before giving it to Janae, and it found that four other staff members failed to administer Thick-It properly. DBHDD further found that although DPCs staff were required to check a resident every 30 minutes, the staff did not follow this policy. DBHDD ultimately concluded that the actions of DPCs staff constituted neglect
3
because of the failure to use Thick-It as proscribed by Janaes physicians and her ISP.
Amos filed suit against Creative Consulting, Walcott, DPC, and DPCs owner and general manager,
4
alleging wrongful death, negligence, negligence per se, punitive damages, and estate claims against all of the defendants. CCS answered the complaint and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted following a hearing. Specifically, the trial court determined that there was no evidence to show that CCS’ actions or omissions proximately caused Janaes death and that no genuine issues of material fact remained. This appeal followed.
1. First, Amos argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on her negligence claims because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether CCS’ failure to observe and correct the deficiencies in DPCs records proximately caused Janaes death. Specifically, Amos argues that CCS’ failure to discover discrepancies and missing information in DPCs records pertaining to the administration of Thick-It, DPCs staffing shortage, and DPCs routine bedtime checks proximately caused Janaes death. We agree in part, and conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether CCS’ failure to discover discrepancies and missing information in DPCs records pertaining to the administration of Thick-It proximately caused Janaes death.
5
“To state a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish the following essential elements: (1) a legal duty; (2) a breach of this duty; (3) an injury; and (4) a causal connection between the breach and the injury.” (Citation omitted.) ABM Aviation v. Prince, 366 Ga. App. 592, 595 (1), 884 S.E.2d 8 (2023). Additionally, we have been clear that “[n]egligence is not actionable unless it is the proximate cause of the injury.” (Citation omitted.) Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Owens, 330 Ga. App. 123, 130 (2), 766 S.E.2d 569 (2014).
Proximate cause is that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by other causes, produces an event, and without which the event would not have occurred. In this regard, a negligent actor who breaches a duty to another is not responsible for a consequence which is merely possible, according to occasional experience, but only for a consequence which is probable, according to ordinary and usual experience.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, 311 Ga. 588, 592, 858 S.E.2d 23 (2021). And, we have noted that “there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury in cases involving the concurrent negligence of several actors.” (Citation omitted.) Orr v. SSC Atlanta Operating Co., 360 Ga. App. 702, 709 (2), 860 S.E.2d 217 (2021). Moreover, “ ‘probable,’ in the rule as to causation, does not mean ‘more likely than not’ but rather ‘not unlikely’; or, more definitely, such a chance of harm as would induce a prudent man not to run the risk; such a chance of harmful result that a prudent man would foresee an appreciable risk that some harm would happen.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson, supra, 311 Ga. at 592, 858 S.E.2d 23. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Georgia has emphasized that foreseeability, as it relates to proximate cause, focuses on “the incident causing the injury as opposed to the foreseeability of the injury.” (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Ga. CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, 316 Ga. 718, 734 (2) (D) (1), 890 S.E.2d 209 (2023).
The requirement of proximate cause constitutes a limit on legal liability; it is a policy decision that, for a variety of reasons, e.g., intervening act, the defendants conduct and the plaintiffs injury are too remote for the law to countenance recovery. The determination of whether proximate cause exists requires both factfinding in the ‘what happened’ sense, and an evaluation of whether the facts measure up to the legal standard set by precedent.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Johnson, supra, 311 Ga. at 593, 858 S.E.2d 23. “And it is generally a jury question as to whether or not such negligence proximately caused the injury.” (Citation omitted.) Mercy Housing Ga. III, L.P. v. Kaapa, 368 Ga. App. 270, 274 (1) (b), 888 S.E.2d 346 (2023).
Applying the aforementioned legal principles, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Walcotts failure to observe the discrepancies in DPCs records regarding the use and administration of Thick-It proximately caused Janaes death. Importantly, we first note that CCS has conceded that “the failure to administer Thick-[I]t proximately caused [Janaes] death,” and that DPCs failure to administer Thick-It in accordance with the ISP “led to [Janaes] death. Thus, by this admission, CCS concedes that a causal connection exists between the failure to administer Thick-It in accordance with the ISP and Janaes death. Second, we note that there is evidence in the record that DPC was required to document the administration of Thick-It to Janae based on DBHDDs finding that DPC was deficient for failing to do so. Specifically, as stated above, DBHDD reviewed DPCs progress notes from October 7, 2018, to November 20, 2018, which contained documentation concerning Janaes meals during that time period, and it confronted DPCs staff for not documenting any administration of Thick-It to Janae, and concluded that DPC was deficient for failing to document this information. Moreover, Walcott knew of a prior incident in which Janae aspirated and knew that Thick-It needed to be added to Janaes liquids to keep her from choking, and Walcott admitted that documentation regarding the administration of Thick-It is something that she would look for as part of her review of a clients care. Yet when questioned as to whether she checked DPCs records specifically for this information, Walcott merely stated, “unless I see it, if they say were putting it in there, that is what I go by[,]” and that she did not “hone in” on whether Thick-It was being given to Janae at the time of her visit because Janae was not being fed or drinking anything at that time. Additionally, Creative Consultings executive director specifically testified that a support coordinator was “expected” to review all of a providers records as part of the support coordinators completion of the IQOMR, and one of the questions in the IQOMR specifically asks whether “supports and services” were being delivered to the client as required by the ISP. And, the record is clear that Janaes ISP required that Thick-It be added to her liquids to prevent her from choking, which could lead to aspiration and death. Thus, there is some evidence that Walcott did not conduct a proper review of Janaes records to specifically check for documentation regarding the use and administration of Thick-It to Janae. And, in light of DBHDDs finding that DPC did not document any information regarding the use and administration of Thick-It to Janae while she resided at DPC, there is also some evidence that Walcott would have discovered the deficiencies in DPCs records concerning the Thick-It if she had conducted a proper review, which would have required her to do a coaching or referral that may have corrected the issues regarding the use and administration of the Thick-It before such issues led to Janaes death. Given this evidence in the record, albeit conflicting, and CCS’ concession that the failure to use Thick-It in accordance with the ISP led to Janaes death, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Walcotts failure to observe the discrepancies in DPCs records concerning the administration of Thick-It proximately caused Janaes death. See Mercy Housing Ga. III, L.P., supra, 368 Ga. App. at 275 (2) (a), 888 S.E.2d 346 (trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on causation element in a wrongful death action, where the evidence showed that the defendants were required, but failed to install an emergency call device, and the evidence showed that the victim would have been rescued sooner had the device been provided to the victim); Vann v. Finley, 313 Ga. App. 153, 161-162 (2), 721 S.E.2d 156 (2011) (genuine issues of material fact remained as to proximate cause where the evidence showed that the defendant would have discovered that smoke detectors were not installed in a mobile home if he had conducted a required inspection, and the victims would have likely survived the fire if smoke detectors had been installed); Purcell v. Breese, 250 Ga. App. 472, 475 (1), 552 S.E.2d 865 (2001) (defendant not entitled to summary judgment in wrongful death action where the defendant, who had treated the victim for hallucinations and suicide attempts, was aware that the victim was at risk for committing suicide and discharged him from the hospital without speaking to him or reviewing the most recent entries in his records which revealed that the victim “constantly” thought about suicide).
Moreover, we reject CCS’ claim that Morgans negligence was an intervening act that extinguishes their liability.
[U]nder the well-established doctrine of intervening causes, a defendants breach of a duty does not constitute a proximate cause of a plaintiffs injury when there has intervened between the act of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff, an independent act or omission of someone other than the defendant, which was not foreseeable by the defendant, was not triggered by the defendants act, and which was sufficient of itself to cause the injury.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 366 Ga. App. 507, 509, 883 S.E.2d 533 (2023). Still, we have been clear that the intervening act
does not insulate the defendant if the defendant had reasonable grounds for apprehending that such wrongful act would be committed. Stated differently, if the character of the intervening act claimed to break the connection between the original wrongful act and the subsequent injury was such that its probable or natural consequences could reasonably have been anticipated, apprehended, or foreseen by the original wrong-doer, the causal connection is not broken, and the original wrong-doer is responsible for all of the consequences resulting from the intervening act.
(Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 511, 883 S.E.2d 533. Moreover, we have been clear that “[t]he foreseeability analysis is not that specific: the relevant inquiry is not whether the exact intervening negligent act was foreseeable, but whether, as a general matter, the original negligent actor should have anticipated that this general type of harm might result.” (Citation omitted.) Granger v. MST Transp., LLC, 329 Ga. App. 268, 271 (1), 764 S.E.2d 872 (2014).
Here, the record is clear that the role of a support coordinator was to provide “oversight monitoring” of direct services that a provider gives to a client. And, in monitoring the services provided to a client, a support coordinator was required to review a providers documentation as part of the support coordinators completion of the IQOMR, and one of the questions in the IQOMR specifically asks whether “supports and services” were being delivered to the client as required by the ISP. If the support coordinator discovered issues in the providers care after conducting a review, the support coordinator was to issue a coaching or a referral to address and correct the deficits in the clients care. Pertinently, Walcott specifically testified that documentation regarding the administration of Thick-It is something that she would look for as part of her review of a clients care, but she admitted that she did not “hone in” on whether Thick-It was being given to Janae at the time of her visit because Janae was not eating or drinking anything at that time. Because Walcott was required to monitor DPC, review its documentation about the use and administration of Thick-It, and take corrective actions if there were deficiencies in the providers care, we conclude that Walcott could have reasonably anticipated or foreseen DPCs failure to provide the proper care to Janae. See Cotton v. Smith, 310 Ga. App. 428, 441 (3), 714 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (fact issue remained as to whether the victims molestation was an intervening act that extinguished the school employees liability for releasing the victim to an unidentified convicted felon, because a jury could have concluded that the molestation would not have occurred if the employee had performed her administrative duties properly); Coleman v. Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.A., 194 Ga. App. 508, 510-511 (1), 390 S.E.2d 856 (1990) (doctors negligent act of performing a therapeutic abortion was not an intervening act that extinguished the original doctors negligent injection of a hormone into the plaintiff that “started the chain of events”). Thus, CCS’ claim that Morgans negligence was an intervening act necessarily fails. And for the reasons stated above, because there is conflicting evidence as to whether CCS performed a proper review of Janaes care at DPC, we are constrained to conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether CCS’ failure to discover deficiencies in DPCs records regarding the administration of Thick-It proximately caused Janaes death.
6
2. Amos further argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain on her negligence claims as to whether CCS breached a legal duty of care to Janae. We agree and conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether CCS breached a legal duty of care.
7
(a) As to Amos’ ordinary negligence claim, as stated above, a cause of action for negligence requires, in part, a breach of a legal duty of care. ABM Aviation, supra, 366 Ga. App. at 595 (1), 884 S.E.2d 8. In this case, CCS concedes that they owed Janae a legal duty of care. Therefore, the only remaining issue to be determined is whether CCS breached their legal duty of care by examining whether the defendant engaged in improper conduct in relation to the duty of care owed. See Clary v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 340 Ga. App. 351, 356 (2), 795 S.E.2d 757 (2017) (“[I]t is not enough for a plaintiff to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; the plaintiff must specify the conduct that constituted a breach of that duty, that is what the defendant did that it should not have done.”).
In this case, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether CCS breached their legal duty of care to Janae. As recounted in detail above, there is evidence in the record to show that Walcott was required to review Janaes documentation as part of her monthly review of Janaes care and the completion of the IQOMR, and to ensure that DPC was administering Thick-It in accordance with Janaes ISP. Yet Walcott testified that at the time of her review, she did not “hone in” on whether DPC was administering Thick-It to Janae. In light of this evidence, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether CCS breached a legal duty of care.
(b) As to Amos’ negligence per se claim, it is well settled that “negligence per se arises when a statute or ordinance is violated.” Hubbard v. Dept. of Transp., 256 Ga. App. 342, 349 (3), 568 S.E.2d 559 (2002). And, “[t]he violation of certain mandatory regulations may also amount to negligence per se if the regulations impose a legal duty.” Id. at 349-350 (3), 568 S.E.2d 559. “When the law requires a person to perform an act for the benefit of another or to refrain from doing an act which may injure another, although no cause of action is given in express terms, the injured party may recover for the breach of such legal duty if he suffers damage thereby.” OCGA § 51-1-6. The trial court, however, must first consider “(1) whether the injured person falls within the class of persons [the statute] was intended to protect and (2) whether the harm complained of was the harm the statute was intended to guard against.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hubbard, supra, 256 Ga. App. at 350 (3), 568 S.E.2d 559.
8
In this case, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain on Amos’ negligence per se claim. Specifically, we note that OCGA § 37-1-20 authorizes DBHDD to supervise physical care and treatment, regulate the delivery of care, and provide guidelines and oversight of homes. OCGA § 37-1-20 (1), (2), (12), (17), & (19). And, as recounted above, DBHDD enacted regulations for support coordinators to abide by when reviewing a clients care, including reviewing documentation and issuing a coaching or referral. Furthermore, we conclude that Janae was in the class of persons to be protected. OCGA § 37-1-2 (a) specifically provides that “the state has a need to continually improve its system for providing effective, efficient, and quality mental health, developmental disability, and addictive disease services.” Thus, Janae, who was a developmentally disabled woman, clearly falls within the class of persons that the statute was designed to protect. Finally, the harm complained of was the type of harm the statute intended to guard against. As previously stated, OCGA § 37-1-20 vests power in the DBHDD to regulate and oversee care for individuals with developmental disabilities, and to establish and regulate facilities for the treatment of disabilities. Thus, the type of harm that occurred in this case — the failure to oversee the care of a developmentally disabled woman and the eventual death of that woman — is precisely the type of harm that the statute was designed to guard against. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by determining that no genuine issues of material fact remained on Amos’ negligence claims.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial courts order granting CCS’ motion for summary judgment.
Judgment reversed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Creative Consulting, however, does not directly provide care to any of its clients.
2
. “ISP” stands for individual service plan, which is a plan that is tailored for each individual client based on the clients particular needs.
3
. DBHDDs policy defines “neglect” as “the failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid actual or potential physical or medical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness.”
4
. Amos settled the action against DPC and its owner and general manager, and therefore they are not a part of this appeal.
5
. Amos’ claim regarding DPCs bedtime checks was not preserved for appellate review because she did not argue below that the issues concerning the bedtime checks created a genuine issue of material fact in her written response to CCS’ motion for summary judgment or at the hearing on the motion. And “we do not apply a ‘wrong for any reason’ rule to reverse incorrect rulings on issues not raised or ruled upon in the trial court.” (Citation omitted.) Alston & Bird, LLP v. Mellon Ventures II, L.P., 307 Ga. App. 640, 648 (6) (b), 706 S.E.2d 652 (2010). Moreover, Amos’ claim regarding the alleged understaffing at DPC fails to create a genuine issue of material fact. We have not uncovered any evidence in the record that DPC was required to have more than one staff member present at the home at all times. Also, Janaes ISP did not require her to be under constant care and supervision by two staff members. Instead, Janaes ISP merely required that two staff members assist with lifting and transferring her, and we note that DBHDD did not determine that DPC was deficient in this area or that the understaffing was connected in any way to Janaes death.
6
. Although CCS further argues that Amos’ negligence claim fails because of a lack of expert testimony, we do not address this claim because CCS did not assert it as a basis for summary judgment below in their written motion or at the hearing. See Wellons, Inc. v. Langboard, Inc., 315 Ga. App. 183, 186 (1), 726 S.E.2d 673 (2012) (“Appellate courts do not consider whether summary judgment should have been granted for a reason not raised below because, if they did, it would be contrary to the line of cases holding that a party must stand or fall upon the position taken in the trial court.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).
7
. We address this claim because the trial courts order also summarily concluded that no genuine issues of material fact remain on Amos’ negligence claims.
8
. A plaintiff is also required to establish a causal connection between the negligence and the injury. Hubbard, supra, 256 Ga. App. at 350 (3), 568 S.E.2d 559. For the reasons stated above in Division 1, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to proximate cause.
Miller, Presiding Judge.
Mercier, C. J., and Hodges, J., concur.