325 Ga. App. 863
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- On May 8, 2009 Gregory Piccione, driving a MasTec-owned pickup while on company business, collided with Gilda Wilson’s vehicle; both drivers were cited at the scene for running a red light. MasTec admits Piccione was acting in the scope of employment.
- Piccione denied fault, said he was using a hands-free phone, was not impaired, and had no accidents prior to this incident; he pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of "too fast for conditions" to avoid costs.
- MasTec performed a pre-employment driving-record check in March 2008 that revealed three older speeding convictions and one stop-sign violation (most recent more than three years before hiring); Piccione had no citations in the three years before hiring and completed MasTec’s required defensive driving training.
- Wilson sued Piccione for negligence and MasTec under respondeat superior, and asserted punitive damages against both; she also asserted negligent hiring/retention/supervision/entrustment claims against MasTec.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on punitive damages and on negligent hiring/retention/supervision/entrustment; the trial court denied the motion and defendants obtained interlocutory appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages against Piccione are supported | Piccione’s conduct (running a red light / guilty plea to too-fast-for-conditions) supports punitive damages | Evidence does not show willful misconduct, pattern of dangerous driving, or conscious indifference | No punitive damages; summary judgment should have been granted for Piccione |
| Whether punitive damages against MasTec are supported | MasTec knew of prior convictions and failed to protect the public by hiring/retaining/entrusting Piccione | MasTec performed record checks, training, and had no recent or commercial-vehicle violations to indicate conscious indifference | No punitive damages; summary judgment should have been granted for MasTec |
| Whether negligent hiring/retention/entrustment claim against MasTec survives when respondeat superior admitted | Wilson contends independent employer negligence supports punitive and separate negligence claims | MasTec argues respondeat superior admits vicarious liability and separate negligent-hiring claims are duplicative absent valid punitive-damages claim | Because punitive claim fails, negligent hiring/retention/entrustment claim is duplicative and summary judgment should have been granted for MasTec |
| Standard for summary judgment and evidentiary burden for punitive damages | N/A (procedural) | Defendants assert they met summary judgment burden showing no clear and convincing evidence of punitive conduct | Court applied de novo review and held plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence required for punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (explaining de novo appellate review and summary judgment standard)
- Kelley v. Blue Line Carriers, 300 Ga. App. 577 (employer entitled to summary judgment on negligent-hiring/entrustment when respondeat superior admitted unless punitive damages claim against employer is viable)
- Durben v. American Materials, 232 Ga. App. 750 (same principle regarding duplicative employer negligence claims)
- Western Indus. v. Poole, 280 Ga. App. 378 (punitive damages require circumstances of aggravation beyond ordinary negligence)
- Smith v. Tommy Roberts Trucking Co., 209 Ga. App. 826 (employer’s failure to check driving record can support punitive damages if it would reveal serious violations)
- Lindsey v. Clinch County Glass, 312 Ga. App. 534 (punitive damages in auto cases require pattern/policy of dangerous driving, not mere rule violations)
- Bartja v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 218 Ga. App. 815 (two moving violations did not, alone, preclude summary judgment on punitive damages)
- Brooks v. Gray, 262 Ga. App. 232 (single traffic infractions insufficient for punitive damages)
- Miller v. Crumbley, 249 Ga. App. 403 (failure to keep proper lookout and related violations do not necessarily support punitive damages)