Wood v. B&S Enterprises, Inc.
314 Ga. App. 128
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wrongful-death action against B & S Enterprises, Inc. for the death of Daniel Wood in a motor-vehicle collision involving an independent contractor, Francisco Esquibel.
- B & S is a small company owned by Barker; it hires independent contractors, pays weekly, and does not withhold taxes.
- Esquibel, an independent contractor driving Barker’s vehicle, collided with Wood as Esquibel was en route to Barker’s workshop.
- Plaintiff claimed B & S was vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Esquibel’s negligence; defendant argued Esquibel was an independent contractor or acting outside scope.
- Trial court denied summary judgment on two grounds (independent-contractor status and scope-of-employment) and the case proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict for B & S.
- Appellate review affirming the jury verdict and judgment in favor of B & S based on the evidence and legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special mission doctrine applicability | Wood contends error in charging special mission doctrine. | Barker/Esquibel evidence shows no employer-directed special mission. | Charge proper; no error; no evidence of a special mission. |
| Cell-phone scope-of-employment instruction | Employee phone use during commute may show scope of employment. | No evidence of phone use for company business during the accident. | Court did not err in denying requested instructions; lack of tailored evidence. |
| Deposition-readback request | Jury should be allowed to hear deposition portions for impeachment. | Trial court acted within discretion; entirety of deposition not introduced. | No reversible error; discretion affirmed. |
| Juror excusal for cause | Trial court should have excused juror with anti-employer-liability bias. | Juror could follow law despite beliefs; not bias per se. | No manifest abuse; denial of strike for cause affirmed. |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict contrary to weight of the evidence. | Evidence supports the jury finding that Esquibel was not acting within scope. | Evidence supports verdict; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Betsill v. Scale Sys., Inc., 269 Ga.App. 393, 604 S.E.2d 265 (2004) (scope of employment requires employer-directed special mission)
- Hankerson v. Hammett, 285 Ga.App. 610, 647 S.E.2d 319 (2007) (employer liability for employee in special mission absent evidence)
- Hunter v. Modern Continental Construction Co., Inc., 287 Ga.App. 689, 652 S.E.2d 583 (2007) (employee's phone use may show scope of employment)
- Clo White Co. v. Lattimore, 263 Ga.App. 839, 590 S.E.2d 381 (2003) (possible scope finding when company business discussed during phone use)
- Sellers v. Burrowes, 302 Ga.App. 667, 691 S.E.2d 607 (2010) (charges must be tailored to evidence)
- Elliott v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 275 Ga.App. 865, 622 S.E.2d 77 (2005) (juror impartiality and cause for strike; follow law despite beliefs)
- Torres v. Tandy Corp., 264 Ga.App. 686, 592 S.E.2d 111 (2003) (affirming verdict where employee merely commuting to work)