Appellants-Defendants, James and Erica Sparks (the Sparkses), appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment against Appellees-Plaintiffs, Chester and Barbara White (the Whites), on the Whites’ claim for negligence. The Sparkses present three issues for our review, which we restate as the following two:
(1) Whether the Sparkses are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of duty; and
(2) Whether the Sparkses are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause.
Conclusion (slip op. at 15): We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the Sparkses’ motion for summary judgment. We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 11, 14): While we cannot fault the Sparkses for setting their mailbox close to the road in accordance with postal service guidelines, a factual question remains as to whether their particular mailbox presented an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists . . . a factual question exists as to whether the Sparkses owed the Whites a duty to design their mailbox differently . . . there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Sparkses foresaw or should have foreseen that Barbara would leave the road and strike their mailbox, which was set three feet from the road.