Court Opinion

ID: 9571042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:28:41.337228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:50.511663
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Movant Simmons U.S.A. contends that we failed to follow Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. of Ga. v. Jeffares, 190 Ga. App. 449, 451 (3) (379 SE2d 167) (1989), which determined that summary judgment could be granted in favor of a party whose contradictory testimony was satisfactorily explained. Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson & Steinichen, 257 Ga. 583 (361 SE2d 383) (1987) [cited in the opinion], *604an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reversing 182 Ga. App. 690, held that “the reasonable explanation merely permits the favorable portion of the contradictory testimony to remain as evidence to be considered; the reasonable explanation does not operate to eliminate the adverse unfavorable testimony so as to establish any fact authorizing the grant of summary judgment. The reasonable explanation does not act to exclude the existence of an issue of fact, if such is raised by the party’s contradictory statements themselves, or by other evidence.” (Emphasis in original.)
Decided June 23, 1989
Rehearing denied July 31, 1989
Weiner, Dwyer, Yancey & Machín, J. Matthew Dwyer, Jr., Beryl H. Weiner, John D. Stone, Thomas C. Dempsey, for appellant.
Neely & Player, Randall M. Davis, Leigh M. Smith, for appel-lees.
Insofar as any rule expressed in Southern Guaranty conflicts with Gentile, it must yield. 1983 Ga. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. VI.

Rehearing denied.

Carley, C. J., Deen, P. J., McMurray, P. J., Banke, P. J., Birdsong, Sognier, Pope and Benham, JJ., concur.