In Smith v. Doe 189 Ga. App. 264 (375 S.E.2d 477) (1988), the identity of the owner of the car which hit the plaintiff was known, but the evidence was in conflict as to whether that owner was driving the car at the time of the collision. Id. at 264-265. The plaintiff filed a two-count complaint, naming John Doe as the tort-feasor in one count and naming the known owner as the tort-feasor in the other count. The plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier moved for summary judgment on the ground that a John Doe action was improper because the tort-feasor was known. The trial court granted the motion. But this court reversed that ruling because the conflicting evidence created genuine issues of material fact as to whether the driver was known, and thus a "John Doe" action was proper and not subject to summary adjudication. Id. at 266 (3).