*1 Brogdon, affirmed. July Decided Wright Anderson, Gammon & Gammon, Jr., T. W. Peter
O’Callaghan, Jr. for Attorney, Mickey Wilson, Darrell E. Thacker, District R. Assis- Attorney, appellee. tant District A89A0684.STROZIER U. A. v. SIMMONS S. CORPORATION et
al. Beaslеy, injury operating As a result anof he received at work while baling July brought against machine on an action including Corporation several mons U. S. A. Simmons аnd Sim- Manufacturing Company, remaining Inc. The defendants are appeal. not involved this baling by Manufacturing The machine owned Simmons
operated рlant. injury, its at After A. Strozier’s Simmons U. S. filed a claim on his behalf and obtained benefits companies him. When the two Simmons answered Strozier’s com- plaint they employed by admitted that he was U. A. Simmons by Manufacturing. and not In the latter of the an- swer the defendants reiterated that admitted Strozier was em- solely ployеd employed Simmons U. S. that he and denied other defendant. The same theme was carried forward in a statement of set material facts defendants wherein was injury that Simmons U. S. A. was his of Strozier and summary compensation. was covered workers’ The first motion for judgment, withdrawn, which was later relied also the fact that employer. Simmons U. S. A. was Strozier’s Subsequently theory the answer was amended set of of out new joint employers defense, that defendants were venturers and summary judgment Strozier. Their second motion for contended that they port enjoyed immunity. therefore both presented
of this contention аffidavits and documents were virtually inseparable, showed the two Simmons U. being S. A. the administrative arm and Simmons be- operating interlocking entity. branch It was alsо shown Simmons U. in 1986. From the that A. two salary; kept paid Simmons Manufactur- the records and owning building worked, ing, where Strozier the machine and beside its that he was form whiсh indicated also sent Strozier W-2 tax employee. hearing de After a the trial court *2 corporation A., of the two de U. the successor fendant Simmons fendants. It found that were both they corporate arrangement through a linear wholly Western; ma Gulf & that the owned subsidiaries of corpo they jоrity same; each conducted of their officers was the that corpora meetings location; the two rate tions at the same time and payroll 1986; in S. A. handled the that Simmons U. Manufacturing issued services, while Simmons other administrative W-2 tax forms to Strozier and owned and the machine which factory he worked the where injured found that him. The court further joint joint no venture and there was he worked for a Strozier denied although agreement was a memo into evidence there venture randum which outlined the panies. offered reorganization corporate of the two com a of law that thе The court concluded as matter engaged against them was were barred law, in a venture and an action remedy provisions the exclusive (314 Sеckinger citing Foreman, & Co. v. 252 Ga. SE2d (1984), (276 App. George Hyman Co., Boatman v. Constr. 157 Ga. 272) (1981). SE2d appeals and contends that the evidence did not finding in favor of the defendants and further that the admissions prevent the sum- made defendants were alone sufficient mary judgment. support considering proof de- all,
First of the offered question summary judgment, there a serious fendants’ motion judgment The evidence their favor. whether the evidence demands tends corporation either the other show that one or employer necessarily instance, W-2 form listed For the but not both. employer of Sim- as and made no mention listing regards monthly pension A.; roll Sim- U. as
mons
likewise
employees.
hand,
mons Manufacturer’s
On the other
the
as
Western
listed Simmons
claim form
USA/Gulf
pay
name Simmons
and Strozier’s
check contained
the
payor.
no
U. S.
In
can it be said there was
as
such circumstances
issue material fact?
may,
initial
Be
as
cоntained in defendants’
the statements
may
pleadings
controlling.
provides
that a
OCGA 24-3-30
pleadings
allegations
avail himself of
contained
the
necеssity
offering
v.Wood
without
them into evidence. See
(1) (1882);
Kane, 92
Isom,
Tenn. &c. R. v.
Ga. 187
It was error to to defendant Simmons U. A.S. Carley, McMurray, J., reversed. J., C. and P. concur. Rehearing.
On Motion for Movant Simmons U.S.A. contends that we failed to South- follow Guaranty ern Ins. Co. Jeffares, Ga. v. 167) (1989), which determined that contradictory testimony could be in favor of a whose satisfactorily explained. was Gentile 383) (1987) opinion], Steinichen, 257 Ga. [cited in the reversing Supreme Ga. Court earlier decision of the merely permits explanation the favorable held that “the reasonable contradictory testimony as evidence to remain of the operate explanation to eliminate considered; the does not reasonable testimony any fact author- so as establish the adverse unfavorable izing explanation summary judgment. The reasonable fact, if such of an issue does not act to exclude the existence raised evidence.” contradictory themselves, or statements original.) Guaranty expressed Southern conflicts Insofar as rule yield. VI, Constitution, VI, Gentile, it Art. Sec. with Par. VI. McMurray, Rehearing Carley, J., P. C. denied. Birdsong, Sognier, Pope Benham, JJ., Banke, J.,P. and Decided June Beryl Yancey Dwyer, Dwyer, Jr., Weiner, Machín, & J. Matthew Dempsey, Weiner, Stone, H. John D. Thomas C. for Neely Player, appel- Leigh Smith, Davis, Randall M. M. lees. THE
A89A0704.SMITH v. STATE. appeal appellant’s motion This is from the trial court’s denial of acquittal. Appellant under and filed his dеmand for trial during court. March term of OCGA 17-7-170on March 4-6) impaneled (April during jury term, A the March after during demand, he term. Nor was was not tried term) jury (May during succeeding term which tried the next 2-4). (May impaneled “[W]here is made and two terms qualified expire, juries impaneled court .at both of which *4 try acquittal discharge defendаnt, [Cits.]” follow. (1979). “[T]he State, Bush by operation discharge place law.” Thornton takes defendant’s State, plied.) SE necessary, acquit “[N]o motion to Bishop automatically, operation .” law. . . accused results 165) (1912). (Emphasis supplied.) State, Thus, May automatically discharged at the close