Cgl Facility Management, LLC v. Wiley
328 Ga. App. 727
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Keiana Wiley died in a head-on collision when CGL employee Michael Thad Clay crossed the center line driving a company pickup; Clay later tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Plaintiff Bryant Wiley (administrator/surviving spouse) sued Clay (wrongful death) and CGL (respondeat superior; negligent hiring, retention, entrustment, training, and maintenance).
- At the time of the crash Clay was commuting from home to work in a CGL truck; CGL had provided, insured, and maintained the vehicle and paid for fuel.
- Clay had prior driving-related convictions (three DUIs, license suspension in 1989) and other minor accidents; CGL’s policy was to run MVRs, background checks, and drug tests at hire, though his personnel file lacked documentation.
- CGL moved for summary judgment arguing Clay was not acting in the scope of employment at the time of the crash and that insufficient evidence supported negligent-hiring/retention/training/maintenance claims; trial court denied the motion and this interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Wiley's Argument | CGL's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondeat superior (vicarious liability) | Clay drove a company truck; presumption he acted within scope | Clay was commuting to work (purely personal) when crash occurred; employer rebutted presumption | Reversed trial court: CGL entitled to summary judgment — employee was commuting and not on a work mission |
| Negligent hiring & retention | CGL knew or should have known of Clay’s dangerous driving history | Employer not liable because accident occurred during commute, outside scope of employment | Reversed trial court: summary judgment for CGL — cannot be liable under these theories where employee was off-duty commuting |
| Negligent entrustment | CGL had or should have had actual knowledge of Clay’s DUI history and negligently entrusted truck | CGL disputes knowledge or that remote prior convictions create liability | Affirmed trial court in part: jury question exists whether CGL had actual knowledge of pattern of reckless driving and negligently entrusted vehicle |
| Negligent training & maintenance | CGL failed to train/maintain vehicle causing crash | No evidence of negligent training; only fact: Clay was on a full-size spare tire, with no evidence it caused crash | Reversed trial court: summary judgment for CGL on training and maintenance claims |
Key Cases Cited
- International Business Machines v. Bozardt, 156 Ga. App. 794 (presumption employee driving employer vehicle acted within scope; employer may rebut with clear evidence)
- Littlefield Constr. Co. v. Bozeman, 314 Ga. App. 601 (post-rebuttal "other facts" requirement and standard for circumstantial proof to defeat summary judgment)
- Banks v. AJC Intl., Inc., 284 Ga. App. 22 (driving company vehicle while commuting does not necessarily make employer vicariously liable)
- Gill Plumbing Co. v. Macon, 187 Ga. App. 481 (elements of negligent entrustment; actual knowledge and circumstantial proof)
- Ed Sherwood Chevrolet v. McAuley, 164 Ga. App. 798 (circumstantial proof can show employer’s knowledge of driving record)
- Upshaw v. Roberts Timber Co., 266 Ga. App. 135 (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)