*1 no control over the employees personnel department who maintained qualified them and was not testify to about them. The accounting supervisor was not incompetent testify to as to the practices so, as to the records of the company, he did and the documents were admissible under the business records act. Code Ann. 38-711. § alleges separation defendant further notice was by (absenteeism). separation
altered the cause of adding Since the properly employee plus admitted work change record of status report showed that the defendant was terminated for accumulation absenteeism, points we find the admission separation notice to be harmless error.
12. Defendant contends the court erred in charging After reviewing the we charge, find no merit these enumerations error.
Judgment affirmed. the Justices concur. April September
Submitted Weiner, Paul S. Slaton,
Lewis R. Attorney, District Dean H. Benjamin Oehlert, III, Assistant Attorneys, District appellee. Bolton,
Arthur K. Attorney General, Mary Westmoreland, Beth Staff Attorney General, Assistant amicus curiae.
36126. SMITH v. LOTT et al.
Clarke, The narrow to be decided here is whether a combine driven at of eight to seventeen miles per hour on a where the speed limit is 55 hour could by jury be found be an obstruction.
While driving a along tractor-trailer a highway, passed Smith combine being Lott. Evidence set the of the combine at somewhere between hour and seventeen miles hour. During maneuver, Smith’s passing began to execute a left-hand turn and the two vehicles collided. order to combine, Smith yellow had crossed over a solid line which indicated prohibited. was
The trial court charged presence as to the of an a driver rule that exception general to the rise to an giving obstruction (a) Ann. Code 68A-301 side of the road. keep right hand § must “ a vehicle shall (2) (a) width roadways all of sufficient provides: Upon (2)— except as follows: roadway, right half of the be driven the left of necessary to drive to making it an obstruction exists When doing yield shall any person so provided, highway; the center of the proper direction to all vehicles *2 right-of-way as to such a distance of the within portion highway unobstructed hazard____” returned a verdict jury an immediate constitute Smith. Smith, v. in the trial court Appeals of reversed
The Court 291) (1980), as to (265 charge that the saying SE2d App. 153 Ga. 365 us on The case is now before authorized. obstruction was not certiorari, reverse. and we must be object is whether an to be determined question
The first is no such We hold there stationary in order to be an obstruction. it is when may be an obstruction requirement. A motor vehicle or generally could not be in a manner which operated on a all of the circumstances reasonably anticipated, taking into account thereby hinders place, time and and present and conditions at such palpable and Except in clear proper travel on such road. impedes the jury. is one for the cases, operated is so the issue of when a vehicle at a low of Here, speed of the combine puts the evidence hour. The would per miles high eighteen hour and a The width speed range. its to be within this be authorized to find across portion protruded such that its left hand the combine heré was law under say as a matter of highway. the center line of the We cannot an combine did not these circumstances obstruction. evidence, particular a any slight,
Where there is
however
in
to that
charge the law relation
point, it is not error for the court to
R.
of Ga.
Carter v. Central
(1871);
Camp Phillips,
Judgment reversed. the Justices Hill, J., and who dissent.
Argued May September Custer, Kelley, Henry David J. C. Harvey
J. appellees.
Hill, Justice, dissenting. my being view a combine driven on a road at a of 8 miles meaning hour or more is not an obstruction within so another driver who is in the same justify statute as to opinion in pass no-passing majority direction to it zone. Under the be an slowly significantly, driven school bus could obstruction. More (or stopped) left turn slowing a school bus down order to make a an could be obstruction. following
This is not a case where the driver of the vehicle came vehicle, up slowly moving speed, behind a slowed down to its followed distance, pass. it a and then decided to Here the short being plaintiff tractor-trailer was at a of 50 to 55 down; plaintiff just hour. This never slowed he decided no-passing zone at an intersection where the defendant I planned to turn left. would affirm the decision of the Court of
Appeals. joins
I am to state that Justice Jordan Presiding authorized this dissent. *3 v. SIEGEL et al.
36155. CODNER Bowles, the Court granted
This court certiorari to consider Division Codner, Siegel Appeals’ opinion 287) (1980) suggests partial performance which that is sufficient for an a lesser amount consideration accord and satisfaction where satisfy liquidated than owed is offered to debt. opinion. facts are set forth that partial performance
The issue before the court is whether serves agreement as consideration for an to take a lesser sum than liquidated Siegel contends that on June owed on a debt. $18,000 orally accept payment full of a debt of agreed Codner as $31,000 days. He provided payment more than was made within 60 agreement contends that on June Codner made the same only writing requirement Siegel he added the either obtain a,first indemnify Codner’s release him on mortgage agree from mortgage. Siegel partially performed contends that he agreement by arranging, of June before Codner withdrew his 12th