309 Ga. App. 637
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Peyman Farzaneh sues Merit Construction Company for injuries from a pedestrian collision caused by Merit employee David Redic.
- Redic, driving his personally owned pickup, struck Farzaneh while commuting to a Merit job site in Atlanta from his home.
- Redic had purchased the truck from Merit in 2007; title was transferred to Redic and he paid for the vehicle; Merit occasionally maintained private vehicles but did not arrange maintenance for Redic's truck after sale.
- Merit employed field workers who typically commute directly from home to job sites; there is no central office for morning reporting.
- Merit provided some business-related tools and cell service to Redic, and there was discussion of a vehicle stipend for using a personal vehicle for company tasks.
- Trial court granted Merit summary judgment, finding no course-and-scope of employment because Redic was commuting in a personally owned vehicle; Farzaneh appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commuting in a personal vehicle can be within course and scope | Farzaneh argues special circumstances/work connection negate personal commute rule | Merit contends commuting in personal vehicle is purely personal | No genuine issue; commuting not within scope as a matter of law |
| Whether presumption applies when vehicle is employer-owned | Owner vehicle creates presumption of scope and course | Presumption applies only if vehicle is employer-owned at time of injury and not rebutted | Presumption does not apply because Redic's truck was personally owned at time of collision |
| Whether special circumstances or special mission exceptions apply | Facts (cell phone, tools, possible stipend) may create special circumstances | These facts are insufficient to create special circumstances or a special mission | Special circumstances/mission not established; liability not imposed |
| Whether workers' compensation rationale supports vicarious liability | Workers' comp concepts should influence negligence liability | Workers' compensation rules differ from negligent liability; not controlling | Workers' comp rules do not govern this negligence case; not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Clo White Co. v. Lattimore, 263 Ga.App. 839 (2003) (time-of-injury test for course-and-scope vicarious liability)
- Allen Kane's Major Dodge v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776 (1979) (presumption when employer-owned vehicle is involved)
- Hicks v. Heard, 286 Ga. 864 (2010) (situations where employer-owned vehicle and related factors considered)
- Braddy v. Collins Plumbing etc., 204 Ga. App. 862 (1992) (affirmative resolution of respondeat superior where facts show working context)
- Hunter v. Modern Continental Constr. Co., 287 Ga.App. 689 (2007) (special circumstances exception recognized)