In under Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 (343 S.E.2d 680) (1986) the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a trial court must decide as a matter of law if the testimony of a party-witness is contradictory. Id. at 30.
The testimony "'is contradictory if one part of the testimony asserts or expresses the opposite of another part of the testimony.'" Smith v. Vencare, Inc., 238 Ga. App. 621 (1) (519 S.E.2d 735) (1999).
Here, the fact omitted from Gilstrap's deposition testimony, that Head let go of the ladder, does not conflict with his earlier interrogatory answer; the answer is "merely fuller, more expansive, and complete." Id.
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment deposition testimony the opposing party should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the court should construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp., 187 Ga. App. 594, 596 (370 S.E.2d 843) (1988).
Further, this court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Desai v. Silver Dollar City, 229 Ga. App. 160, 163 (1) (493 S.E.2d 540) (1997).