On August 21, 1985, William Troutman, who was the general manager of Mead Corporation’s two corrugated box plants in Atlanta and Covington, met five other Mead employees at a restaurant/bar to celebrate the impending marriage of another employee. Mead Corporation subsequently reimbursed one of the employees for the tab. Troutman, who had four drinks of Scotch during the hour and a half that he was at the bar, admittedly was “high” or feeling a “buzz” when he left. On his way home, driving a company car, Troutman fell asleep at the wheel and ran over Angelo and Velma Divecchio as they were walking their dog. Each filed individual actions against Trout-man and Mead Corporation, and each appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Mead Corporation. Hеld:
1. In
Sutter v. Hutchings,
The first crucial question in this case is whether Mead provided alcoholic beverages to Troutman. As a matter of literal fact, аt the time of the alcohol consumption, Mead was not the provider, but it is undisputed that Mead ultimately reimbursed one of the salesmen who included the bar tab in his company expense voucher. It appears from the record, however, that the salesman “disguised” the bar tab as an entertainment/dinner expense to promote sales with a particular company. There is no other evidence showing that Mead, in approving reimbursement of the “entertainment” expense, had any knowledge of the rеal nature of the expense, and nothing from which one may infer such knowledge. Under these circumstances, where the salesman in effect perpetrated a fraud upon his employer, there was no basis for finding that Mead had provided alcoholic beverages to anyone.
2. The appellants also contend that Troutman was within the scope of employment when hе ran over the appellants, since he was driving a company car and Mead reimbursed him for most of the gas *448 oline he purсhased, thus making Mead responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Under the facts of this case and the prеsent state of the law, however, we disagree.
Generally, when an employee is involved in a collision while operating his еmployer’s automobile, a presumption arises that he was acting within the scope of his employment.
Allen Kane’s Major Dodge v. Barnes,
In the instant case, at the time of the сollision, Troutman was driving home for the evening, a purely personal mission absent some other fact. The appellants attempted to show that Mead not only furnished Troutman the vehicle, but also apparently reimbursed him for gasoline expenses incurrеd during personal use of the car, and then included this reimbursement as a business expense in determining its tax liability. If Mead represented suсh reimbursement of personal gasoline expenses as business expenses for tax purposes, the appellants arguе, Mead should regard Troutman’s personal use of the car as company business.
Troutman’s deposition testimony indicates that he did consider much of his drive-time to and from work and home to be company business for purposes of determining who should pay for the gasoline, due to his having to travel back and forth from the two Mead plants. However, although the amount of personal mileаge claimed by Trout-man on the expense vouchers was but a small fraction of the total mileage, only cumulative comрilations of the mileage were required, and not any detailed account of the personal use. In short, nothing in the expensе vouchers correlates the reimbursement with the nature, i.e., company or personal, of the mileage. This evidence simрly would not support a verdict that at the time of the collision, Troutman’s driving home after an evening of carousing with subalterns was within the scope of his employment. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied summary judgment as to this theory of recovery as well.
Assuming that the gathering at the restaurant/bar had been a matter of company business, i.e., Mead approved of such activity because it furthered the business purpose of improving working relationships or employee morale, the doctrine of respоndeat superior is still unavailing to the appellants. In a whole court decision, this court
*449
has previously rejected application of that doctrine where an employee got intoxicated “wining and dining” prospective customers and then was invоlved in a collision when he drove home.
Healthdyne v. Odom,
Judgments affirmed.