Court Opinion

ID: 9846975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:51:33.361984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:58.110721
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
The motion for reconsideration should be entertained on its merits because it addresses a substantive change in the opinion, which was made after the original motion for reconsideration addressed the *461first opinion. The change relates to the duty owed by Millar Elevator Service Company, and the majority opinion substituted a different legal duty than had been imposed in the original opinion.
Decided June 28, 1996
Reconsideration denied July 12, 1996 and Reconsideration dismissed July 31, 1996
Lokey & Smith, Malcolm Smith, Jon W. Burton, for appellants.
Adele L. Grubbs, Amelia G. Pray, for appellees.
Millar should be given the opportunity to seek reconsideration of this new ruling, which as the majority opinion acknowledged has not been previously stated in Georgia law. The purpose of motions for reconsideration cannot reasonably be served if they are not permitted after a significant substantive change is made in the opinion. Rule 37 (d) does not apply to this situation but rather to those where a losing party simply attempts a second bite at the same apple.
The motion should be considered and granted.
I am authorized to state that Judge Andrews, Judge Johnson and Judge Smith join in this dissent.