If issues of material fact remain for jury determination then it is not proper for a trial court to grant a summary judgment or to direct a verdict; for if there is some evidence, together with all reasonable deductions and inferences from it, to support the contentions of the opposing party, it is error for the court to grant such motion. See Whitaker v. Paden, 78 Ga. App. 145 (1), 148 ( 50 S.E.2d 774); Pollock v. Ga. Power Co., 141 Ga. App. 678, 679 (3) ( 234 S.E.2d 107); Elkins v. Willett Lincoln-Mercury, 141 Ga. App. 458, 459 ( 233 S.E.2d 851); Isom v. Schettino, 129 Ga. App. 73, 74 (1) ( 199 S.E.2d 89). Compare White v. Woods, 135 Ga. App. 618, 619 ( 218 S.E.2d 322); Whitco Produce Co. v. Bonanza International, 154 Ga. App. 92, 94 ( 267 S.E.2d 627). On the return of the remittitur, the defendant at trial stipulated a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court shifted the burden to the defendant.

On a motion for directed verdict, the evidence must be construed most favorably for the party opposing the motion. Pollock v. Ga. Power Co., 141 Ga. App. 678 (3) ( 234 S.E.2d 107) (1977). Dixie Lime's evidence, thus construed, made out sufficiently cogent proof of damages.