Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson, & Steinichen, Inc.
| Citation | 361 S.E.2d 383,257 Ga. 583 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 44665,44665 |
| Parties | GENTILE, Admrx. v. MILLER, STEVENSON, & STEINICHEN, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
James B. Gordon, Atlanta, for Shirley Gentile.
John W. Winborne III, Donald E. Loveless, Atlanta, for Miller, Stevenson & Steinichen, Inc.
We granted certiorari to answer the following question: "Does the rule found in Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 30(2), 343 S.E.2d 680 (1986) have the same ultimate effect when applied to a movant for summary judgment as it has upon a respondent?" Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson & Steinichen, Inc., 182 Ga.App. 690, 356 S.E.2d 666 (1987). We answer that question in the affirmative and reverse because of the misapplication of our holding in Prophecy.
In Prophecy, we examined the applicability of the "contradictory testimony rule," the rule that a party's self-conflicting testimony is to be construed against him, to testimony presented in response to a motion for summary judgment. We held that where a reasonable explanation of the contradiction is offered, the inconsistency will not be construed against the party-witness. "The burden rests upon the party giving the contradictory testimony to offer a reasonable explanation, and whether this has been done is an issue of law for the trial judge." Prophecy, 256 Ga. at 30(2), 343 S.E.2d 680. Where a party's explanation for a contradiction is determined to be unreasonable, the trial court must eliminate the favorable portions of the contradictory testimony and then take all testimony on motion for summary judgment Id. at 28(1), 343 S.E.2d 680. In Prophecy, the respondent offered a reasonable explanation for its contradictory testimony, the favorable portion of its contradictory statements was, thus, not eliminated, and a fact issue remained precluding the grant of summary judgment.
In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the rule in Prophecy applies to movants as well as respondents so that if a movant for summary judgment provides a reasonable explanation for a contradiction, the inconsistency will not be construed against him. However, contrary to the Court of Appeals' further holding, the reasonable explanation merely permits the favorable portion of the contradictory testimony to remain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desai v. Silver Dollar City, Inc.
...testimony is to be construed against her unless a reasonable explanation for the contradiction is offered. Gentile v. Miller, etc., Inc., 257 Ga. 583, 361 S.E.2d 383; Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 30, 343 S.E.2d 680. Because Mrs. Desai offered no explanation for the......
-
Garmon v. Warehouse Groceries Food Center, Inc.
...there exists no inconsistency in this testimony, which has not been reasonably explained, within the meaning of Gentile v. Miller, etc., Inc., 257 Ga. 583, 361 S.E.2d 383. The record in its totality reveals not even the shadowy semblance of an issue that the agents of appellee store have kn......
-
Sharfuddin v. Drug Emporium, Inc.
...testimony rules must be applied because Sharfuddin offered no explanation for the contradictions. Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson, etc., Inc., 257 Ga. 583, 361 S.E.2d 383; Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 30, 343 S.E.2d 680. Therefore, the favorable portions of Sharfuddin......
-
Ezor v. Thompson
...as a whole, not just the contradictory testimony, to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate. In Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson &c., 257 Ga. 583, 361 S.E.2d 383 (1987), the Supreme Court, agreeing that Prophecy applied to movants as well as respondents, explained how to apply a par......