Dykes v. Hammock, 157 S.E.2d 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Dykes v. Hammock, 157 S.E.2d 524 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
54 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes (gactapp, 1971-06-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes
Ga. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
Accordingly, anything to the contrary in Lampkin v. Edwards, 222 Ga. 288 (3, 5) ( 149 SE2d 708 ); Ryder v. Schreeder, 224 Ga. 382, 386 ( 162 SE2d 375 ); Dykes v. Hammock, 116 Ga. App. 389 *67 ( 157 SE2d 524 ); Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 116 Ga. App. 391 (1) ( 157 SE2d 526 ); McKnight v. Guffin, 118 Ga. App. 168 (4) ( 162 SE2d 743 ); Davis v. Ferrell, 118 Ga. App. 690, 692 ( 165 SE2d 313 ) and Chandler v. Gately, 119 Ga. App. 513, 514 (3) ( 167 SE2d 697 ), can no longer be considered as binding authority on this court.
DYKES
v.
HAMMOCK; And Vice Versa
42899, 42900.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 8, 1967.
157 S.E.2d 524
John P. Nixon, for appellant., Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, Hendley V. Napier, for appellee.
Quillian, Deen.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
Quillian, Judge.

1. The plaintiff filed a petition alleging in part: that the defendant, owner of a used car lot, negligently placed a chain on the pavement in an area where his customers would walk; that as a result of stepping on the chain she fell and sustained certain injuries. However, on deposition she testified, “Something rolled under my foot is what throwed me.” While she testified she fell in the area where the chain was located neither she nor any other witness testified that she actually stepped on the chain causing her to fall. It is true, in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, she filed an affidavit which stated she stepped on the chain. However, if a plaintiff testifies to facts in one instance and also testifies that he does not know them to be true, this neutralizes his testimony and proves nothing. Hamby v. Hamby, 99 Ga. App. 808, 820 (110 SE2d 133); Robertson v. Carroll Furn. Co., 54 Ga. App. 841 (189 SE 273); Wallace v. State, 55 Ga. App. 872, 875 (192 SE 81). Testimony of a party in his own behalf must be construed most strongly against him, if self-contradictory, vague or equivocal, and without other evidence of a right to recover, he is not entitled to a finding if his testimony, so construed, shows that the verdict should be against him. Douglas v. Sumner, 213 Ga. 82, 85 (97 SE2d 122). A summary judgment is analogous to a directed verdict (McCarty v. National Life &c. Ins. Co., 107 Ga. App. 178, 179 (129 SE2d 408); Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ingalls Iron Works Co., 109 Ga. App. 574 (136 SE2d 505); Pike v. Stafford, 111 Ga. App. 349 (141 SE2d 780)) and if this case had gone to trial, under the above evidence, the defendant would have been entitled to the direction of a verdict. Under the principles[*390] stated in the above cited authorities, the judge of the superior court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Abner v. W. T. Grant Co., 110 Ga. App. 592 (139 SE2d 408); Daniell v. Collins, 222 Ga. 1, 3 (148 SE2d 295).

Argued June 8,1967 Decided September 8, 1967 Rehearing denied September 28, 1967. John P. Nixon, for appellant. Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, Hendley V. Napier, for appellee.

2. In view of the ruling in Division 1 of this opinion, the question in the cross appeal as to whether the court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition is moot.

Judgment affirmed on main appeal; cross appeal dismissed.

..Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.