330 Ga. App. 250
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Warnock, a Mastec field technician hired to install/repair DirecTV equipment, was driving a company van when he ran a stop sign and collided with the Sandfords.
- Warnock paid $40/week for the privilege of driving the Mastec van to and from home; company policy identified commuting as non-working time but required closing out jobs and completing timesheets as work activities.
- Warnock received a job assignment during the workday via supervisor call and closed that job on a handheld device before leaving the customer site; he typically completed his daily timesheet in the van and rarely at home.
- Electronic trip data and Warnock’s handwritten timesheet (showing an end time near the accident) were produced, but the trip-report interpretation was unexplained and Warnock could not recall where he signed the timesheet.
- Eyewitness and co-worker testimony indicated Warnock was driving home at the time of the collision; plaintiffs emphasized possible outstanding paperwork and route irregularities to argue he remained on the employer’s business.
- The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Mastec and DirecTV, later denied it; the court of appeals granted interlocutory review and reversed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warnock was acting within the course and scope of employment (respondeat superior) when the accident occurred | Warnock had outstanding work (paperwork) and may have been completing job duties or en route to finish them, so he remained on employer business | Direct testimony and circumstantial evidence show Warnock was driving home after his last job and not performing employer duties; employer rebutted presumption that employee in company vehicle was on duty | Court held Warnock was not acting within scope; defendants entitled to summary judgment because direct testimony he was driving home was uncontradicted by sufficient "other facts" |
| Whether the "special mission" exception applies (employee performing a special employer-directed errand) | Plaintiffs argued outstanding assignments/paperwork could make the trip a special mission or continuation of employment | Employer showed the last job was routine work, not a special employer-directed errand; policy treated commuting as personal and Warnock paid to take the van home | Court rejected special-mission argument; last job was ordinary, so exception did not apply |
| Whether the trial court properly reconsidered its earlier summary-judgment ruling | Plaintiffs relied on court’s reconsideration to keep case alive | Defendants argued reconsideration outcome was erroneous because no genuine dispute of material fact remained | Court found reconsideration issue moot given reversal on the merits and affirmed defendants’ entitlement to judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen Kane’s Major Dodge v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776 (establishes presumption employee in employer vehicle is acting within scope; burden shifts to employer)
- Elam v. Ins. Co. of North America, 134 Ga. App. 169 (employee driving home not within scope despite intent to do employer paperwork at home)
- Littlefield Constr. Co. v. Bozeman, 314 Ga. App. 601 (exception where employer-provided vehicle enables convenient performance of employer duty may create fact issue)
- Wright v. Pine Hills Country Club, 261 Ga. App. 748 (special-mission exception for trips directed by employer)
- Farzaneh v. Merit Constr. Co., 309 Ga. App. 637 (general rule that commuting is personal activity outside scope)
- Dougherty Equipment Co. v. Roper, 327 Ga. App. 434 (summarizes burden-shifting framework and sufficiency of "other facts" when employer rebuts presumption)
- Hargett’s Telephone Contractors v. McKeehan, 228 Ga. App. 168 (ordinary job performance does not create special-mission exception)
- Patterson v. Southeastern Newspapers, 243 Ga. App. 241 (special errand on a scheduled day off can create material issue)