As such, it amounts to a business record, inadmissible as hearsay because no foundation was laid for its admission under the Business Records Act. See Span v. Phar-Mor, Inc., 251 Ga. App. 320, 322 (1) ( 554 SE2d 309) (2001).Exhibit E
"In Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 ( 343 S.E.2d 680) (1986), the Supreme Court held that where the favorable portion of a party's self-contradictory testimony is the only evidence of such party's right of recovery, the opposing party is entitled to summary judgment in the absence of a reasonable explanation. Span v. Phar-Mor, Inc., 251 Ga. App. 320, 322 ( 554 S.E.2d 309) (2001). Accordingly, construing Oliver's affidavit testimony against him, the only remaining evidence is Oliver's deposition testimony that Sutton did inform him he had arthritis and Sutton's affidavit testimony that he informed Oliver of the diagnosis.
The court concluded this was a business record and held that it constituted inadmissible hearsay because no foundation was laid for its admission. Id. at 9, 679 S.E.2d at 59 (citing Span v. Phar-Mor, Inc., 251 Ga. App. 320, 322, 554 S.E.2d 309, 311 (2001)). Finally, North Star introduced into evidence affidavits from an authorized representative.
The court concluded this was a business record and held that it constituted inadmissible hearsay because no foundation was laid for its admission. Id. at 9, 679 S.E.2d at 59 (citing Span v. Phar–Mor, Inc., 251 Ga.App. 320, 322, 554 S.E.2d 309, 311 (2001)). Finally, North Star introduced into evidence affidavits from an authorized representative.
[Cit.]” Thomasson v. Trust Co. Bank, 149 Ga.App. 556, 558, 254 S.E.2d 881 (1979).Span v. Phar–Mor, Inc., 251 Ga.App. 320, 322, 554 S.E.2d 309 (2001). Accordingly, the documents submitted by Diving World were legally sufficient to support its motion for summary judgment.