Court Opinion

ID: 9561437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:09:49.009841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:48.410428
License: Public Domain

Pope, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I fully concur with the majority opinion on the venue issue, but I cannot agree that the trial court properly disallowed evidence of the DOT engineer’s notation in his diary that there was a major problem to be corrected. This was not evidence that subsequent repairs were made, and was not introduced to show that subsequent repairs were made. Rather, it was an admission, pure and simple, regarding the condition of the roadway. Compare Studard v. Dept. of Transp., 219 Ga. App. 643, 644 (2) (466 SE2d 236) (1995) (evidence that DOT employee actually ordered remedial measures was properly excluded).
I am authorized to state that Judge Smith joins in this special concurrence.