*1 625 69875. DOBOZY v. SYSTEMS, COCHRAN AIRPORT INC. et al. (330 815) SE2d Judge.
Sognier, Dobozy, D. Charles as administrator of the estate of Charles P. Dobozy, brought against Airport (CAS) Systems, suit Cochran Inc. damages and others to recover incurred from a collision between the Dobozy by Terry Hayles, automobile and a truck driven a CAS em- ployee. granted summary judgment The trial court in favor of CAS Dobozy appeals. and Appellee company picnic employees private hosted a for its at a facility. picnic, appellee’s employee Hayles, beach At that minor, a provided beverages thereby was alcoholic and he became intoxicated. Hayles way picnic was on his home from the when he collided with appellant’s fatally injuring appellant’s the rear of automobile dece- dent. Appellant by
1. granting summary contends the trial court erred judgment appellee questions appel- to because of fact remain whether appellant theory respondeat lee was “The causes an superior. liable to under a of general respondeat superior rule of follows: When a servant injury another, to the test to determine if the master is liable is ing injury whether or not the servant was at the time of the act- scope employment within the of his and on the business of the Major Dodge [Cits.]” master. Allen Kane’s Barnes, 776, v. 243 Ga. (257 186) (1979). picnic 777 SE2d It is uncontroverted that the was appellee’s property, Hayles’ presence picnic not held on that at the required duty employment appellee, was not a of his with if and even picnic part Hayles’ employment, the could be considered of that Hayles driving “ ‘ driving company was not on call or a vehicle but was instead privately home in a owned truck when the accident occurred. general going rule, “As a a in servant to and from his work in an only purposes automobile acts for his own and not for those of his employer, consequently employer and the is not to be held to be lia- injury ble for an occasioned while the servant is en route to or from ’ ” App. [Cits.]” his work. Elam v. Ins. America, Co. North 134 Ga. of (213 546) (1975). Appellant produce any 169 SE2d failed to evidence Hayles acting employer’s that was in furtherance of his business at being genuine the time of Thus, the collision. there no issue of fact Hayles acting employer scope employment whether was within the of his or on the business of his collision, at the time of the the trial by granting appellee’s summary judg- court did not err motion for Healthdyne, (1) (325 App. ment. See Odom, Inc. v. 173 Ga. 184 SE2d 847) (1984). Appellant by granting summary 2. contends the trial court erred judgment appellee appellant’s as a matter of law to on tort claim be- appellee, by providing cause minor, alcohol to a is liable to in- one
626
jured by
negligence
minor. We reverse the trial
the
of the intoxicated
summary judg-
appellee
not entitled to
court on the basis that
was
(327
Hutchings,
law, Sutter v.
concurs.
concurs
concurring specially.
Judge,
Carley,
grant
I
of
sum-
concur with the reversal of the trial court’s
total
mary judgment
appellee
agree
in
I
favor of
CAS and
with the basic
—
—
analysis
terminology
in
but not all of the
contained
both divi-
majority opinion.
only
my understanding
sions of the
I write
to state
really
resulting posture
of
we have
what
held and the
the case will
upon
majority
1,
In
assume
return to the trial court. Division the
con-
by stating
by granting appellee’s
cludes
“the trial court did not err
summary judgment.” (Emphasis supplied.)
2,
motion
In Division
for
majority
genuine
the
finds
issues of material fact and reverses as to
“appellant’s
(Emphasis supplied.) Actually,
plaintiffs
tort claim.”
the
initially
upon
entire suit
in tort
sounds
and
was based
two theories.
—
—
respondeat superior
impose
One of these theories
seeks to
vica-
liability
upon
Major Dodge Barnes,
rious
Allen
and based
Kane’s
v.
(257
186) (1979),
pouses
providing
liability
upon
appellee
more direct
is based
the
in
act of
Hutchings,
alcohol to a minor. See Sutter v.
cause of action based the of reversing grant summary judgment rior. We are favor of the trial court’s of in appellee appellant’s as to cause of action to the extent that predicated upon injuries appellant the same is averments that the of by negligence caused the of the minor resulted from the tortious con- appellee providing duct of in alcohol to that minor. Sutter v. Hutch- ings, supra. April 23,
Decided 1985. Clay appellant. Goodman, Bush, James E. F. for Brady appellees. Green, D. for