Dougherty Equipment Co. v. Roper
327 Ga. App. 434
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Roper sued Dougherty after its employee Adam Garland, driving a company van, collided with her while en route from his home to the employer’s office to receive daily assignments.
- Garland was an on-call forklift technician; Dougherty allowed technicians to take vans home and use them for company business; Garland had been issued a company fuel card.
- At hiring Garland had DUI and driving-suspension history; Dougherty knew of a 2004 DUI-related suspension and initially prohibited driving company vehicles.
- In 2007 Garland received a restricted permit; Dougherty obtained a 2007 MVR showing a limited permit notation and later cleared Garland to drive and assigned him a van after his license was fully restored.
- Trial court denied Dougherty’s motion for summary judgment on respondeat superior, negligent hiring, and negligent entrustment; Dougherty sought interlocutory review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vicarious liability (respondeat superior) for accident while employee driving employer vehicle to work | Garland was driving a company van and was on-call; presumption that he acted within scope | Garland was commuting to the office to receive assignments and had not begun work; commuting is a personal activity rebutting presumption | Court: Presumption rebutted by undisputed evidence that Garland was commuting; Roper did not show other direct facts (e.g., an actual call) to create a jury question — summary judgment for Dougherty on vicarious liability reversed trial denial (i.e., employer entitled to summary judgment) |
| Negligent hiring (based on prior driving record) | Employer knew Garland’s history; should be liable for hiring/retaining an unsafe driver | Tort occurred while employee was commuting (outside scope), and injured party was a member of public (no special relationship); thus no negligent-hiring liability | Court: Because tort occurred outside scope (commute) and no special relationship, negligent-hiring claim fails — summary judgment for Dougherty granted |
| Negligent entrustment (owner’s negligent loaning of vehicle) | Dougherty negligently entrusted van given knowledge of Garland’s driving record | Dougherty argues no negligent entrustment; disputes about actual knowledge and causation | Court: Genuine issues of fact exist about Dougherty’s actual knowledge of multiple DUIs (2007 MVR notation supports inference); denial of summary judgment on negligent entrustment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Heard, 286 Ga. 864 (employee on call is not always acting in scope; employer must rebut presumption when vehicle owned by employer)
- Allen Kane’s Major Dodge, Inc. v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776 (presumption that employee in employer vehicle was acting within scope; burden shifts to employer)
- Littlefield Constr. Co. v. Bozeman, 314 Ga. App. 601 (clarifies burden-shifting and the need for "other facts" to defeat employer’s motion)
- Video Warehouse, Inc. v. Southern Trust Ins. Co., 297 Ga. App. 788 (negligent-hiring liability requires the tort to occur in scope of employment when injured person is a member of the public)
- Gill Plumbing Co. v. Macon, 187 Ga. App. 481 (elements of negligent entrustment; actual knowledge required)
- Ed Sherwood Chevrolet, Inc. v. McAuley, 164 Ga. App. 798 (employer’s knowledge of serious driving infractions can create a jury question on negligent entrustment)