Coopers', Inc.
v.
Holmes

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Court of Appeals of GeorgiaJun 16, 1972
126 Ga. App. 597 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
126 Ga. App. 597191 S.E.2d 562

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Black v. Hamilton

    …2. "Where the trial court overruled the defendant's general motion for summary judgment, this court will not…

  • Columbia Drug Co. v. Cook

    …Watkins v. Nationwide c. Ins. Co., 113 Ga. App. 801, 802 ( 149 S.E.2d 749). See also Southern Bell Tel. c.…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

47283.

SUBMITTED MAY 25, 1972.

DECIDED JUNE 16, 1972. REHEARING DENIED JUNE 30, 1972.

Action for damages. Polk State Court. Before Judge Flournoy.

Dennis Fain, Douglas Dennis, for appellant.

Glenn T. York, Jr., for appellee.


1. Where the trial court overruled the defendant's general motion for summary judgment, this court will not reverse unless from the entire record construed against the movant it appears that there is an absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Roberson, 120 Ga. App. 361 ( 170 S.E.2d 587); Manhattan Industries v. Paul, 126 Ga. App. 595.

2. Since there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant Coopers', Incorporated, knowingly entrusted to defendant Cato its truck with no inside rearview mirror and with an outside right-rear-view mirror in a useless condition, and as to whether such defects were a proximate cause of Cato's backing over plaintiff's decedent with the truck (see Code Ann. §§ 68-1718, 68-1726 (6); Gregory v. Ross, 214 Ga. 306 ( 104 S.E.2d 452); Bowyer v. Cummins, 81 Ga. App. 118 ( 58 S.E.2d 224)); the trial court did not err in denying Coopers' motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in toto. While the evidence presented for movant was strong and may very well be sufficient on a trial of the case to require a verdict in its favor, we do not find it to have foreclosed every issue on summary judgment when the rules for construction of the evidence in that posture are applied.

Judgment affirmed. Deen and Clark, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED MAY 25, 1972 — DECIDED JUNE 16, 1972 — REHEARING DENIED JUNE 30, 1972.