" [Cit.]'" Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson Steinichen, 182 Ga. App. 690, 692 ( 356 S.E.2d 666). These elements are completely lacking in this evidence. Some cases which have held that such evidence offered of the sayings of an employee are inadmissible, have done so on grounds that it was not shown the utterer was in fact an agent ( Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Carter, 226 Ga. 825, 827 (2) ( 177 S.E.2d 683); Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center, 146 Ga. App. 134, 135 ( 245 S.E.2d 484)) and wherever this is the case, as here, there is certainly no authority for its entry into evidence as an admission against interest by an employee under §§ 24-3-33 and 24-3-34. Certainly the sayings of the unknown red-haired person were not part of the res gestae, since the alleged utterer is unknown, it cannot be shown that they qualify as being "free from all suspicion of device or afterthought. . . ."
Here, however, there is no evidence that the right-of-way agent, whose whereabouts were unknown and who was unavailable for trial, was acting as Colonial's agent and speaking within his authority. See Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center, 146 Ga. App. 134, 135 (1) ( 245 SE2d 484) (1978). Moreover, the evidence would not have been otherwise admissible as part of the res gestae since it cannot be shown that it was made under circumstances indicating that it was free from "all suspicion of device or afterthought."
Furthermore, although Williams has shown that the city clerk made the admissions during the existence and in pursuance of her agency, she has not shown that the clerk was "`acting within the scope of [her] authority. . . ." Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center, Inc., 146 Ga. App. 134, 135 (1) ( 245 S.E.2d 484) (1978). Without any such evidence, Williams has not established the hearsay declarations upon which she relies, "were admissible under any recognized exception to the rule against hearsay.
The appellant contends that all of this testimony regarding the out-of-court statements assertedly made by the driver should have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay, arguing that the statements could not be considered part of the res gestae of the accident because they were not made contemporaneously therewith or under such circumstances as to render them "free from all suspicion of . . . after-thought" within the contemplation of OCGA § 24-3-3, and that they could not be considered admissions by an agent imputable to the principal under OCGA § 24-3-33 because the driver was not shown to have been acting within the scope of his authority as an employee when he made the statements. See Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center, 146 Ga. App. 134 (1), 135 ( 245 S.E.2d 484) (1978). While we tend to agree with the appellant that neither of these exceptions to the hearsay rule was applicable under the circumstances, we nevertheless conclude, for the following reasons, that the testimony was admissible.
Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that Poppell's injuries were the proximate result of a breach of duties owed to him by his fellow Standard employees. The trial judge, not having excluded any admissible and material evidence offered on behalf of Poppell, did not err in directing a verdict in favor of Georgia Power on the theory that it was guilty of independent acts of negligence. Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center, 146 Ga. App. 134 ( 245 S.E.2d 484) (1978). Compare Isom v. Schettino, 129 Ga. App. 73, 76 ( 199 S.E.2d 89) (1973).
Appellant testified that she saw nothing on the floor before she fell or right after she fell. Appellant failed to show that Bonded Building Cleaners had in any way negligently allowed the condition of the floor to become dangerous, or breached any duty owed appellant. Thus, the directed verdict was not error. Gordon v. Athens Convalescent Center, 146 Ga. App. 134 ( 245 S.E.2d 484) (1978). In view of this holding, we find no error in the trial court's instruction to the jury that the fact that the court had directed a verdict in favor of one of the two original defendants in no way implied that the appellant was not entitled to a verdict against Rich's.