Mathis v. R. H. Smallings & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Nos. 46863,46864,s. 46863,3 |
| Citation | 189 S.E.2d 122,125 Ga.App. 810 |
| Parties | Bennie MATHIS v. R. H. SMALLINGS & SONS, INC. Margaret MATHIS v. R. H. SMALLINGS & SONS, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alfred D. Fears, Jackson, Byrd, Groover & Buford, Floyd M. Buford, Jean Beene, Macon, for appellants.
Harris, Russell & Watkins, Philip R. Taylor, Macon, for appellee.
Syallabus Opinion by the Court
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgments in favor of the defendant in two actions brought against the defendant for alleged injuries received when a crane, owned by the defendant and operated by its employee who was paid by defendant, collapsed while being used to erect light poles on an athletic field owned by Wallace Memorial Association. The defendant contends (1) its crane and operator, by the name of Foy, were loaned without charge to the Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation to be used in erecting the light poles under the latter's supervision and direction, and, (2) the crane so loaned was suitable for the task and no negligence was involved in this respect. Held:
The evidence adduced from the hearing on the motions on these two issues was in conflict. That this conflict may have been occasioned by conflicting testimony of the same witnesses, whether parties or not, does not alter the result. See Cooper v. Plott, 121 Ga.App. 488(2), 174 S.E.2d 446; Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co. v. Jackson, 120 Ga.App. 716, 171 S.E.2d 924; Fulghum Industries v. Pollard Lumber Co., 106 Ga.App. 49, 126 S.E.2d 432; Raven v. Dodd's Auto Sales & Service, Inc., 117 Ga.App. 416, 160 S.E.2d 633; Capital Auto Co. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 119 Ga.App. 186, 166 S.E.2d 584; Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 124 Ga.App. 65, 183 S.E.2d 78; Brown v. Sheffield, 121 Ga.App. 383, 387, 173 S.E.2d 891.
Judgments reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Mock
...for summary judgment by defendant, merely create a conflict in the evidence or a question of credibility. See Mathis v. R. H. Smallings & Sons, 125 Ga.App. 810, 189 S.E.2d 122; Brown v. Sheffield, 121 Ga.App. 383, 388, 173 S.E.2d 6. Even should we concede that the plaintiff's testimony in h......
-
Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc.
...construed in the respondent's favor. See, e.g., Whittle v. Johnston, 124 Ga.App. 785, 186 S.E.2d 129 (1971); Mathis v. R.H. Smallings & Sons, 125 Ga.App. 810, 189 S.E.2d 122 (1972); Browder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 126 Ga.App. 140, 190 S.E.2d 110 (1972); Columbia Drug Co. v. Cook, 127 Ga.App......
-
Prater v. American Protection Ins. Co.
...630, 124 S.E.2d 375; Giant Peanut Company v. Carolina Chemicals, Inc., 129 Ga.App. 718(1), 200 S.E.2d 918; Mathis v. R. H. Smallings & Sons, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 810, 139 S.E.2d 122. The question here is whether or not the check is offered in full settlement, satisfaction or final settlement o......
-
Johnson v. Curenton
...181 S.E.2d 866; Id., 124 Ga.App. 65, 183 S.E.2d 78; Whittle v. Johnston, 124 Ga.App. 785, 186 S.E.2d 129; Mathis v. R.H. Smallings & sons, Inc., 125 Ga.App. 810, 189 S.E.2d 122; Columbia Drug Co. v. Cook, 127 Ga.App. 490, 194 S.E.2d 286. This rule differs in consideration of a directed verd......