Truluck v. Funderburk

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: QUILLIAN; FELTON, C.J., and PANNELL
• Citation: Truluck v. Funderburk, 168 S.E.2d 657, 119 Ga.App. 734 (Ga. App. 1969)
• Decision Date: 28 April 1969
• Docket Number: No. 44324,No. 1,44324,1
• Parties: Audie L. TRULUCK v. A. G. FUNDERBURK

Page 657

168 S.E.2d 657

119 Ga.App. 734

Audie L. TRULUCK v. A. G. FUNDERBURK.

No. 44324.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

April 28, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1969.

Certiorari Denied July 10, 1969.

Reinhardt, Ireland, Whitley & Sims, Tyron Elliott, Tifton, for appellant.

Twitty & Twitty, Camilla, Whelchel & Whelchel, Hoyt H. Whelchel, Jr., Moultrie, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

QUILLIAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the granting of a summary judgment for the defendant in a malpractice case. The ultimate fact for determination is whether the defendant's services were performed in an ordinarily skillful manner. Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Ingram, 114 Ga. 639, 640, 40 S.E. 708. This question can only be decided, except in a few extreme circumstances, upon the expert opinion and testimony given by physicians. Shea v. Phillips, 213 Ga. 269, 98 S.E.2d 552.

'While opinion evidence is sufficient in a proper case to present a jury issue and thus preclude a summary judgment, yet the opinion testimony of the ultimate fact to be decided in the case is never sufficient to authorize the grant of a summary judgment.' Harrison v. Tuggle, 225 Ga. 211, 167 S.E.2d 395, and Ginn v. Morgan, 225 Ga. 192, 167 S.E.2d 393.

Under the holding in the Harrison case the opinion testimony in the case sub judice would not be sufficient to authorize the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Anything held to the contrary in Jackson v. Tucker, 118 Ga.App. 693, 165 S.E.2d 466, decided prior to the Harrison and Ginn cases, supra, must yield to those decisions.

Judgment reversed.

FELTON, C.J., and PANNELL, J., concur.