Carter v. Riggins, 323 Ga. App. 747

Carter sues Riggins and Hester for negligence under OCGA § 51-3-1 and for respondeat superior liability regarding an attack on Carter at the restaurant.
Carter was an invitee; the alleged attack came from Hester’s sons, one employed at the restaurant.
Carter alleges defendants failed to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe and to prevent the assault.
Evidence shows Carter and Hester had a prior romantic relationship; Hester was married with five children and was not present during the attack.
Riggins warned Carter that the sons might attack and later the sons returned and attacked Carter, which ended the incident.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Riggins and Hester; Carter appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Premises liability for a foreseeable attack	Carter argues foreseeability imposed a duty to prevent the attack.	Riggins/Hester contend no foreseeability and no duty to intervene.	No duty and no foreseeability; judgment affirmed.
Respondeat superior liability for an employee’s personal attack	Carter argues employer liable for employee’s attack in the restaurant context.	Riggins/Hester assert attack was for personal reasons, not within business scope.	No vicarious liability; attack not within scope of employment; judgment affirmed.

Days Inn of America, Inc. v. Matt, 265 Ga. 235 (1995) (foreseeability limits duty to warn or intervene when no prior history)
Shockley v. Zayre of Atlanta, 118 Ga. App. 672 (1968) (owner must intervene if danger is foreseeable; not insurer of safety)
Adler’s Package Shop v. Parker, 190 Ga. App. 68 (1989) (premises liability limited by foreseeability and duty to act)
Piedmont Hosp. v. Palladino, 276 Ga. 612 (2003) (employer not liable for employee’s personal torts not in furtherance of business)
Travis Pruitt & Assoc., P.C. v. Hooper, 277 Ga. App. 1 (2005) (distinguishes personal torts from those within employment scope for vicarious liability)