317 Ga. 371 FINAL COPY
S22G0914. PRODIGIES CHILD CARE MANAGEMENT, LLC v. COTTON.
WARREN, Justice.
In January 2018, Bianca Bouie was returning from her lunch
break to her workplace, Prodigies Child Care Management, LLC, also
known as University Childcare Center (“University Childcare”), when
she looked away from the road to scroll through the contacts in her cell
phone so that she could call her manager to report that she was
running late. While Bouie was distracted, her car crossed the median
and caused an accident with a truck that was driven by Andrea Cotton.
Cotton filed a personal injury lawsuit against Bouie and later added
University Childcare as a defendant, alleging, among other things,
that Bouie was acting in furtherance of University Childcare’s
business and within the scope of her employment at the time of the
accident and that University Childcare was therefore liable under the
legal theory of respondeat superior. After the parties conducted
discovery, University Childcare moved for summary judgment, and in April 2021, the trial court granted the motion, concluding, in pertinent
part, that Bouie was not acting in furtherance of University
Childcare’s business and within the scope of her employment when the
accident occurred. Cotton appealed, and a divided Court of Appeals
panel reversed, holding that under the “special circumstances
exception” to the general rule that employees do not act in furtherance
of an employer’s business and within the scope of employment when
they are commuting to and from work or when they are on a lunch
break, and under two of its cases applying that “exception,” Clo White
Co. v. Lattimore, 263 Ga. App. 839 (590 SE2d 381) (2003), and Hunter
v. Modern Continental Constr. Co., 287 Ga. App. 689 (652 SE2d 583)
(2007), there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to the
issue of liability under respondeat superior. See Cotton v. Prodigies
Child Care Mgmt., 363 Ga. App. 376, 378-381 (870 SE2d 112) (2022).
We granted University Childcare’s petition for certiorari to
address whether that holding was correct. As explained below, we take
this opportunity to clarify that the so-called “special circumstances
exception” is merely an application of the doctrine of respondeat
superior—not a separate doctrine or an “exception” to respondeat 2 superior. And whether respondeat-superior liability attaches turns on
whether an employee was acting in furtherance of her employer’s
business and within the scope of her employment at the time she
committed a tortious act. That same framework of analysis applies
whether or not the employee was commuting to or from work or on a
lunch break at the time. Thus, we reject the Court of Appeals’s “special
circumstances exception,” as well as the multi-factor test the court has
developed for applying that “exception.” We also conclude that Clo
White and Hunter—the two cases on which the Court of Appeals relied
in applying the “special circumstances exception”—used imprecise
language regarding the respondeat-superior test, and we disapprove
such language. In light of these conclusions, we vacate the Court of
Appeals’s opinion and remand the case to that court so that it can
apply the proper respondeat-superior test in the first instance.
1. Standard of Review and Factual Background
We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
McBee v. Aspire at West Midtown Apts., 302 Ga. 662, 662 (807 SE2d
455) (2017). Summary judgment is proper if the moving party
demonstrates “‘that there is no genuine issue of material fact, so that 3 the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. at 663
(citation omitted). See also OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (providing that
summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”). A
defendant meets this requirement if it presents “‘evidence negating an
essential element of the plaintiff’s claims or establishing from the
record an absence of evidence to support such claims.’” McBee, 302 Ga.
at 663 (citation omitted). As the party opposing summary judgment,
Cotton is entitled to have the evidence in the record viewed in the light
most favorable to her and to have all reasonable inferences from the
evidence drawn in her favor. See id. at 662-663.
So viewed, the record shows the following. In January 2018,
Bouie was employed as a daycare teacher at University Childcare, and
she also attended college courses to earn her associate degree in early
childhood education.1 Bouie typically took an approximately hour-long,
1 It is undisputed that University Childcare did not require Bouie to
attend the courses and did not pay her tuition. 4 unpaid lunch break during her work day, and on January 26, she used
her lunch break to perform in a puppet show so that she could earn
extra credit in one of her courses. Earlier that day, Bouie told her
manager that she would return from her lunch break “a little bit late,”
likely “a little after 2[:00 p.m.].” She clocked out for her lunch break at
12:53 p.m., drove her own car to the location of the puppet show,
performed in the show, and then left around 2:20 p.m. After she began
driving back to work, she realized that she would arrive later than “a
little after 2[:00].” Intending to call University Childcare to let her
manager know that she was late, Bouie looked away from the road as
she held her personal cell phone in her hand and scrolled through the
contacts listed in her phone to find University Childcare’s phone
number. Before she was able to find the number, however, she looked
up and saw that her car was in the median. As she tried to swerve out
of the way of oncoming traffic, Cotton’s truck struck the passenger side
of Bouie’s car. Bouie was cited for distracted driving and failure to
maintain lane,2 and she admitted during her deposition that the
2 The Hands-Free Georgia Act, which (among other things) prohibits
5 accident was her fault.
In February 2018, Cotton filed a personal injury lawsuit against
Bouie, alleging, among other things, claims of negligence and
negligence per se. About a year later, she amended her complaint to
add University Childcare as a defendant, claiming, among other
things, that University Childcare was vicariously liable for Bouie’s
actions under the theory of respondeat superior, because Bouie was
acting in furtherance of University Childcare’s business and within the
scope of her employment when she attempted to call her manager to
report that she was late.3 Specifically, Cotton asserted that because
University Childcare had “strict teacher-child classroom ratios to
maintain throughout the day,” Bouie’s attempted call was “necessary
and in the interest of [University Childcare’s] business and personal
affairs.”
In addition, the amended complaint alleged, and Cotton later
drivers from holding a cell phone in their hands, see OCGA § 40-6-241, was not in effect at the time of the accident. See Ga. L. 2018, p. 127, § 4. 3 The amended complaint also alleged a claim of negligent training and
supervision against University Childcare. That claim is not at issue here, so we will not discuss it further. 6 presented evidence to the trial court showing, that University
Childcare had a policy directing its employees to speak with a manager
“as soon as possible” if they were going to arrive late to work and that
employees could be disciplined or terminated for being “absent, tardy,
or leav[ing] early without prior knowledge and approval of a
University Childcare Center administrator.” During her deposition,
Bouie testified that punctuality was “very important” at University
Childcare, and she typically called her manager if she was going to be
late. Cotton also presented evidence that the state of Georgia and
University Childcare each established applicable regulations for
teacher-to-child ratios, University Childcare had a policy enforcing
those regulations, and Bouie and the two assistant teachers with
whom she worked usually planned the times of their respective lunch
breaks so as to maintain the required teacher-to-child ratios in Bouie’s
classroom.
In February 2020, University Childcare moved for summary
judgment, arguing that the doctrine of respondeat superior did not
apply as a matter of law because Bouie was not acting in furtherance
of University Childcare’s business and within the scope of her 7 employment, as the accident occurred while she was traveling back to
work during her lunch break. After a hearing, the trial court granted
the motion in April 2021, concluding that Cotton’s theory of respondeat
superior failed as a matter of law, because Bouie was not “acting
within the scope of her employment or engaged in her employer’s
business” at the time of the accident.
Cotton appealed, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals
reversed the grant of summary judgment. Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 382.
The Court of Appeals explained that “[u]nder the doctrine of
respondeat superior, employers are liable for an employee’s tortious
conduct when, at the time of the injury, the employee is acting within
the scope of her employment and furthering her employer’s interests.”
Id. at 378. The court then said that under Georgia law, employees
generally do not act within the scope of employment when they are
commuting to work or when they are on a lunch break, but that there
are “exceptions to this general rule.” The court went on:
In this appeal, the exception at issue is whether “special circumstances” existed such that Bouie was acting within the scope of her employment while traveling to work. Clo White[, 263 Ga. App. at 840]. Under Georgia law, the “special circumstances” 8 exception may arise when factors such as the following are present during an employee’s work commute: (1) carrying work materials in the employee’s car; (2) using a phone for work-related calls; (3) receiving a stipend from an employer for a vehicle; or (4) being “on call.” DMAC81, LLC v. Nguyen, 358 Ga. App. 170, 173 [ ] (853 SE2d 400) (2021) (citations and punctuation omitted). This court has found sufficient evidence of special circumstances to raise a jury question where an employee gets into a car accident while commuting to work when he is on the phone regarding business-related matters or is distracted by an incoming business-related call. See Hunter[, 287 Ga. App. at 691]; Clo White, 263 Ga. App. at 840.
Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 378 (footnote omitted).
The Court of Appeals recounted Cotton’s argument that under
Clo White and Hunter, “Bouie’s use of her cell phone in trying to find
her employer’s number in order to report her late arrival from lunch
constituted ‘special circumstances’ such that she was acting within the
scope of her employment at the time of the accident.” 363 Ga. App. at
379. And after explaining the facts of those cases, the Court of Appeals
said that in Clo White, the court held that “evidence showing that [an]
employee ‘may have’ been on the phone regarding matters of company
business at the time he caused [a] car accident was sufficient to create
a jury question on the issue of special circumstances[,] rendering him
within the scope of employment while driving to work,” Cotton, 363 Ga.
9 App. at 379 (quoting Clo White, 263 Ga. App. at 840), and that in
Hunter the court similarly held that “evidence showing that [an]
employee ‘may have been on his cell phone regarding company
business when [an] accident occurred or that he might have been
distracted by an incoming call from [a co-worker]’ was sufficient to
raise a jury question as to the existence of special circumstances and
the potential for vicarious liability for the employer,” Cotton, 363 Ga.
App. at 379 (quoting Hunter, 287 Ga. App. at 691). Reiterating that
“[t]he test for whether University Childcare may be found liable for
Bouie’s actions is whether she was at the time of the injury ‘engaged
in the master’s business’ or ‘at that time serving the master,’” Cotton,
363 Ga. App. at 380 (quoting Clo White, 263 Ga. App. at 840), the Court
of Appeals concluded that in light of “the evidence that University
Childcare stressed to its employees the importance of reporting
tardiness, and [that] Bouie was in the act of complying with her
employer’s policy when she caused the accident,” the special
circumstances exception applied, such that Cotton had presented
sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to whether Bouie was
acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. 10 Id. at 380-381.4 One judge on the panel dissented, arguing that the
facts presented in this case did not fall within the “special
circumstance[s]” exception, so there was no factual question regarding
University Childcare’s liability. Id. at 382-384. University Childcare
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied,
and then a petition for certiorari in this Court, which we granted.
2. Legal Framework
We now turn to the applicable statutory and decisional law
regarding the doctrine of respondeat superior.
(a) The Legal Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
The Latin phrase “respondeat superior” means “let the superior
make answer.” Respondeat Superior, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.
2019). The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, which is also
known as the “master-servant” rule, provides that employers can be
held vicariously liable for torts committed by their employees under
certain circumstances. See id.; Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. v. Clark,
4 On this score, the Court of Appeals noted: “Although we do not agree
with Cotton’s insistence that Bouie’s actions were affirmatively within the scope of her employment, we do conclude that University Childcare has not established as a matter of law that they were not.” Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 380. 11 273 Ga. 143, 144 (539 SE2d 139) (2000). This principle was first
codified in Georgia in 1863, see Code 1863, § 2904 (providing in
pertinent part that “[e]very person shall be liable for torts committed
by his . . . servant . . . by his command, or in the prosecution, and within
the scope of his business whether the same be by negligence or
voluntary”), and the current statute, OCGA § 51-2-2, contains
substantially similar language, saying, in pertinent part, “Every
person shall be liable for torts committed by his . . . servant by his
command or in the prosecution and within the scope of his business,
whether the same are committed by negligence or voluntarily.”
In accordance with OCGA § 51-2-2, we have explained that “‘[t]wo
elements must be present to render a master liable [under respondeat
superior]: first, the servant must be in furtherance of the master’s
business; and, second, he must be acting within the scope of his
master’s business.’” Piedmont Hosp. v. Palladino, 276 Ga. 612, 613
(580 SE2d 215) (2003) (citation omitted). See also Doe v. Saint Joseph’s
Catholic Church, 313 Ga. 558, 565 (870 SE2d 365) (2022) (quoting the
test set forth in Palladino); Quynn v. Hulsey, 310 Ga. 473, 474 n.2 (850
SE2d 725) (2020) (“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, ‘[w]hen 12 a servant causes an injury to another, the test to determine if the
master is liable is whether or not the servant was at the time of the
injury acting within the scope of his employment and on the business
of the master.’”) (quoting Hicks v. Heard, 286 Ga. 864, 865 (692 SE2d
360) (2010)). In other words, the doctrine of respondeat superior holds
an employer liable for the negligent or intentional torts of its employee
when “‘the tort was done within the scope of the actual transaction of
the [employer’s] business for accomplishing the ends of his
employment.’” Johnson Street Properties v. Clure, 302 Ga. 51, 55 (805
SE2d 60) (2017) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, an employer is not liable for an employee’s tort if the
tort was committed “‘not by reason of the employment, but because of
matters disconnected therewith.’” Clark, 273 Ga. at 144 (citation
omitted). Thus, if an employee “‘steps aside’” from her employer’s
business “‘to do an act entirely disconnected from it and injury to
another results, the [employer] is not liable.’” Clure, 302 Ga. at 55
(citation omitted). See also, e.g., Coe v. Carroll & Carroll, Inc., 308 Ga.
App. 777, 783 (709 SE2d 324) (2011) (“‘(I)f a servant steps aside from
his master’s business to do an act entirely disconnected from it’ or 13 commits a tortious act ‘for purely personal reasons disconnected from
the authorized business of the master,’ the servant is not acting in the
scope of his or her employment and in the furtherance of the master’s
business.”) (citation omitted).
In this respect, although the issue of whether an employee was
acting in furtherance of her employer’s business and within the scope
of her employment at the time she committed a tort is generally a
question for the jury, “summary judgment for the employer is
appropriate where the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom show that the employee was not engaged in furtherance of
the employer’s business, but was on a private enterprise of the
employee’s own.” Clark, 273 Ga. at 144. Put another way, when the
evidence that an employee was not acting in furtherance of her
master’s business and within the scope of her employment is “‘plain
and undisputable,’” a court may resolve a respondeat-superior claim
as a matter of law. Stembridge v. Pride Utility Constr. Co., 365 Ga.
App. 296, 297 (878 SE2d 271) (2022) (citation omitted).
(b) Respondeat Superior Generally Does Not Apply When an Employee Commits a Tort While Going To or From Work
14 For nearly 90 years, appellate courts in Georgia have consistently
held that an employee “acts only for h[er] own purposes”—and not for
those of her employer—while she is going to or from work, so
respondeat superior generally does not apply when an employee
commits a tort during her work commute. Chattanooga Publishing Co.
v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880, 883 (114 SE2d 138) (1960) (explaining that “[a]s
a general rule, a servant in going to and from his work in an
automobile acts only for his own purposes and not for those of his
employer, and consequently the employer is not to be held liable for an
injury occasioned while the servant is en route to or from his work,”
and holding that the trial court properly granted the employer’s motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where the evidence showed
that the employee was in an accident while driving the employer’s
truck to work, because the employee was using the truck “for a purely
personal mission of his own . . . , in no way connected with the business
of the owner, and not within the scope of his employment”) (citation
and punctuation omitted). See also, e.g., Nguyen, 358 Ga. App. at 173
(explaining that “‘[t]he law is clear that in the absence of special
circumstances[,] a servant in going to and from work in an automobile 15 acts only for his own purposes and not for those of his employer,’” and
affirming the trial court’s grant of the employer’s motion for summary
judgment where the employee “was making his usual commute” to
work when he caused an accident) (citation omitted); Dougherty Equip.
Co. v. Roper, 327 Ga. App. 434, 435-438 (757 SE2d 885) (2014) (setting
forth the general rule that “an employee is deemed to act only for his
own purposes while commuting to work,” and reversing the trial
court’s denial of summary judgment for the employer, because the
evidence showed that the employee, who was driving the company van
from his home to the company office to “receive his assignments for the
day” at the time of the accident, “was driving the van to fulfill his duty
of arriving at work on time, and no evidence showed that [he] was
undertaking a duty at [his employer’s] direction at the time of the
accident”) (emphasis in original); Viau v. Fred Dean, Inc., 203 Ga. App.
801, 802-803 (418 SE2d 604) (1992) (explaining the general rule that
an employee “acts only for his own purposes” in commuting to and from
work, and concluding that the trial court erred by denying the
employer’s motion for summary judgment because the uncontroverted
evidence showed that the employee was on his way home from work 16 when he was involved in a collision) (citation and punctuation
omitted); Stenger v. Mitchell, 70 Ga. App. 563, 566 (28 SE2d 885)
(1944) (explaining that “[a]s a general rule, a servant in going to and
from his work in an automobile acts only for his own purposes and not
for those of his employer, and consequently the employer is not to be
held liable for an injury occasioned while the servant is en route to or
from his work,” and holding that the trial court “did not err in granting
[a] motion for nonsuit” filed by the owners of a car dealership, because
there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s theory of respondeat
superior where a salesman for the dealership caused an accident while
driving a car owned by the dealership home from work); Elrod v.
Anchor Duck Mills, 50 Ga. App. 531, 531-533 (179 SE 188) (1935)
(holding that the trial court did not err in “granting a nonsuit” to a
corporation where its assistant superintendent struck the plaintiff
with his car while “heading for the gate to go to his work,” because the
assistant superintendent “was not acting within the scope of his
authority as agent in inflicting the alleged tort, but had only started
on his way to his daily work”). See also, e.g., Restatement (Third) Of
Agency § 7.07 cmt. (e) (2006) (“In general, travel required to perform 17 work, such as travel from an employer’s office to a job site or from one
job site to another, is within the scope of an employee’s employment[,]
while traveling to and from work is not.”); Dan B. Dobbs, Paul T.
Hayden, and Ellen M. Bublick, The Law of Torts § 428 (2d ed. 2023)
(“The master is not vicariously responsible for the acts of a servant
before work begins or after it ends. In particular, the going and coming
rule holds that in jobs with a situs such as an office or factory, an
employee coming to work or going home from it is not in
employment.”). The upshot is that as a matter of law, an employee
generally does not act in furtherance of her employer’s business and
within the scope of her employment while she travels to or from her
workplace. Thus, when an employee causes a car accident while
driving to or from work, respondeat superior generally does not apply,
absent some showing that the employee was otherwise acting in
furtherance of her employer’s business and within the scope of her
employment.5
5 Although the Court of Appeals has applied this general, longstanding
principle in dozens of cases beginning as early as 1935, it appears that this Court has implemented the rule only once, more than 60 years ago, in Chattanooga Publishing Co. See 215 Ga. 880. 18 In a related line of precedent, the Court of Appeals has
consistently held that an employer generally is not vicariously liable
when an employee causes a car accident during her lunch break,
because the employee was on a “purely personal mission” at the time
she committed the tort. Gassaway v. Precon Corp., 280 Ga. App. 351,
352-354 (634 SE2d 153) (2006) (noting that an “employee is deemed to
act only for his own purposes while commuting to work,” and holding
that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the
employer where its employee, who lived in South Carolina but was
temporarily staying in Georgia for his job, caused an accident while
returning to work from his extended lunch break, which he spent
having lunch, securing temporary housing, and arranging for utility
service). See also, e.g., Mannion & Mannion, Inc. v. Mendez, 355 Ga.
App. 28, 31-33 (842 SE2d 334) (2020) (reversing the denial of the
employer’s motion for summary judgment where the uncontroverted
evidence showed that the employee was driving to lunch with a co-
worker at the time of the accident); Matheson v. Braden, 310 Ga. App.
585, 589 (713 SE2d 723) (2011) (affirming the trial court’s grant of
summary judgment for the employer, because the evidence showed 19 that the employee was traveling to his house to eat lunch at the time
of the accident); Reese v. Ga. Power Co., 191 Ga. App. 125, 128-129 (381
SE2d 110) (1989) (per curiam opinion affirming the trial court’s grant
of summary judgment to the employer, because the undisputed
evidence showed that the employee was driving his employer’s truck
while “returning to his job site after having had lunch with his mother
and sister” when he collided with the plaintiff). Like the cases about
commuting to and from work discussed above, these cases impose an
outer limit on the liability that flows from the doctrine of respondeat
superior: an employer usually is not liable as a matter of law when an
employee commits a tort while she is on her lunch break, because
absent some evidence to the contrary, an employee generally is not
acting in furtherance of her employer’s business and within the scope
of her employment at that time.
3. There Is No Separate “Special Circumstances Exception” to the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
As we explained above, under the doctrine of respondeat
superior, an employer is liable for the tortious acts of its employee
when the employee was acting in furtherance of her employer’s
20 business and within the scope of her employment at the time she
committed the tort. However, as a general rule, respondeat superior
does not apply, as a matter of law, when an employee commits a tort
while simply going to or from work or during her lunch break. The
Court of Appeals correctly acknowledged these principles, but it then
went astray by applying the so-called “special circumstances
exception.” After noting that “Georgia law has consistently held that
employees do not act within the scope of employment when they are
commuting to and from work, . . . nor when they are on their lunch
break,” the court said that there are “exceptions to this general rule”
and that “the exception at issue is whether ‘special circumstances’
existed such that Bouie was acting within the scope of her employment
while traveling to work.” Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 378 (footnote
omitted). The Court of Appeals then listed factors for determining
when the “special circumstances exception” arises in cases involving
the issue of whether an employee was acting in furtherance of her
employer’s business and within the scope of employment during her
work commute. See id. Pointing to a similar application of the “special
circumstances exception” in Clo White and Hunter, the Court of 21 Appeals concluded that the exception applied here, such that there was
sufficient evidence to raise a jury issue on respondeat superior. This
analysis was flawed in the following respects.
(a) First, the Court of Appeals treated the “special circumstances
exception” as a separate legal doctrine that prevents the general rules
about commuting and lunch breaks from applying. But as we explain
below, the “special circumstances exception” is merely an application
of the doctrine of respondeat superior—not a separate doctrine.6
It appears that the “special circumstances exception” derived
6 The Court of Appeals has also recognized another “exception” to the
general rule that an employee who is traveling to or from work is engaged in a purely personal activity for purposes of respondeat superior. The court has held that the “special-mission exception” applies when an employee injures another person while traveling to perform a special errand at the direction of her employer before or after customary working hours. Graham v. Hospice Savannah, 368 Ga. App. 91, 94-95 (889 SE2d 212) (2023). See also, e.g., Jones v. Aldrich Co., 188 Ga. App. 581, 582-583 (373 SE2d 649) (1988) (explaining that when an employee undertakes a special mission at the direction of the employer, the general rule that an employee going to and from work acts only for his own purposes does not apply, and concluding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the employer, because there was evidence that the employee caused an accident while on her way home from a job site, where she performed a special errand on behalf of the employer). Cotton does not argue that the “special mission exception” applies in this case, so we need not discuss it further. However, given our conclusion about the “special circumstances exception” below, we are dubious that the so-called “special mission exception” is anything other than an application of the principles of respondeat superior. 22 from language in Hargett’s Tel. Contractors v. McKeehan, 228 Ga. App.
168 (491 SE2d 391) (1997), which said that “‘[t]he law is clear that in
the absence of special circumstances a servant in going to and from
work in an automobile acts only for his own purposes and not for those
of his employer’” before holding that no special circumstance removed
the case from that general rule, because an employee was simply on
his way home from work when he caused an accident, meaning that
his employers were not liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior as a matter of law. Id. at 170 (citation omitted). A few years
later in Clo White and in Hunter, the court again mentioned the
“special circumstances” language from McKeehan, eventually using
the term “special circumstances exception” in several cases, including
this one, that involved the question of whether an employee who
committed a tortious act during his or her commute to or from work or
during his or her lunch break was acting in furtherance of the
employer’s business and within the scope of employment. See Cotton,
363 Ga. App. at 378-382. See also Stembridge, 365 Ga. App. at 298-300
(discussing the “special circumstances exception” and rejecting the
plaintiff’s argument that the exception applied because the employee 23 received “show-up compensation that covered the cost of his commute,”
he had company-issued tools in his truck at the time of the accident,
he was paid a “rig rate” to compensate him for his tools and truck
maintenance, and the employer required him to add its name to his
personal insurance policy as an additional insured); Nguyen, 358 Ga.
App. at 173 (discussing the “special circumstances exception” and
rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the exception applied because
the employee was “making his usual commute” to work at the time of
the accident); Farzaneh v. Merit Constr. Co., 309 Ga. App. 637, 641
(710 SE2d 839) (2011) (discussing the “special circumstances
exception” and rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that it should apply
because the employee had a company-issued cell phone and a
company-issued tool in his truck at the time of the accident and may
have received a “vehicle allowance” as part of his compensation);
Hunter, 287 Ga. App. at 691 (saying that an employer cannot be held
liable for an accident that occurs while an employee is traveling to or
from work unless “special circumstances” exist, and concluding that
such circumstances existed); Clo White, 263 Ga. App. at 840 (saying
that an employer cannot be held liable for an accident that occurs while 24 an employee is traveling to or from work in the absence of “special
circumstances,” and concluding that such special circumstances
existed).
In these cases, the Court of Appeals addressed the question of
whether a plaintiff’s respondeat-superior claim could overcome a
motion for summary judgment by focusing its analysis on whether
“special circumstances” surrounding the employee’s commute
suggested that respondeat-superior liability should apply. In so doing,
the court created a sort of sub-doctrine of respondeat superior that
applies only when an employee commits a tortious act while
commuting to or from work or during a lunch break, effectively
removing those scenarios from the general rules about respondeat
superior and commuting that we have set forth above and risking an
analytical departure from those well-established principles.
In this respect, in applying the “special circumstances
exception,” the Court of Appeals has developed a multi-factor test that
asks whether enumerated “factors such as the following are present
during an employee’s work commute: (1) carrying work materials in
the employee’s car; (2) using a phone for work-related calls; (3) 25 receiving a stipend from an employer for a vehicle; or (4) being ‘on
call.’” Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 378 (citing the same factors in Nguyen,
358 Ga. App. at 173). Such an analysis is an unwarranted restriction
on the totality-of-the-circumstances evaluation inherent to an analysis
of respondeat superior, including because it improperly limits the ways
in which a plaintiff can prove the ultimate question of respondeat
superior. Cf. Stembridge, 365 Ga. App. at 300 (noting these “various
factors relevant to the [special circumstances] exception” but
acknowledging that the Court of Appeals has “never held that such
factors, standing alone, were sufficient to impose vicarious liability”).
That question, by contrast, is determined by evaluating whether, given
the facts of a particular case, an employee was acting in furtherance of
her employer’s business and within the scope of her employment—not
whether any specific “factor” existed.
The Court of Appeals was correct that the long-established rule
is that an employee’s travel to or from work is not within the scope of
employment for purposes of applying the doctrine of respondeat
superior. See Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 378. See also, e.g., Chattanooga
Publishing Co., 215 Ga. at 882. But when a plaintiff contends that the 26 employee who is traveling to or from work does something else that is
allegedly within the scope of the employee’s employment, that
contention is not properly assessed by asking if that separate act fits
within a small set of specific factors or categories. We therefore clarify
and hold that there is no need—and it is not proper—to apply a
separate test to determine whether the acts in question are so-called
“special circumstances.” The proper test is the traditional respondeat-
superior test: whether the employee was acting in furtherance of her
employer’s business and within the scope of her employment at the
time she committed the tortious act. We therefore disapprove the
Court of Appeals’s reference to and application of the “special
circumstances exception” in this case and in other cases, and its
reliance on “factors” for determining whether an employer is
vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee during her
commute to or from work. See Stembridge, 365 Ga. App. at 300
(discussing the “special circumstances exception” and noting factors
for applying it); Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 378-382 (holding that the
“special circumstances exception” applied and mentioning factors);
Nguyen, 358 Ga. App. at 173 (discussing the “special circumstances 27 exception” and listing factors); Farzaneh, 309 Ga. App. at 641
(discussing the “special circumstances exception”); Hunter, 287 Ga.
App. at 691 (concluding that there was evidence that “special
circumstances” existed, such that the issue of respondeat superior
could proceed to a jury); Clo White, 263 Ga. App. at 840 (same).
(b) Along these lines, in Clo White and Hunter—the only two
cases (prior to this case) in which the Court of Appeals determined that
“special circumstances” existed, such that there was sufficient
evidence to raise a jury question as to respondeat superior—the court’s
application of the “special circumstances exception” diluted the
respondeat-superior test. In this respect, Clo White and Hunter
evaluated whether an employee’s tortious act merely was related to
the employee’s work, instead of applying the correct respondeat-
superior test of whether the employee was acting in furtherance of his
employer’s business and within the scope of his employment at the
time of the tort.
In Clo White, there was evidence that an employee called his
employer three times within moments of causing an accident while
driving to work, and the purpose of at least one of the calls was to 28 inform another employee of his arrival time and “to obtain information
that would assist [him] in fulfilling his duties at the office.” See 263
Ga. App. at 839. There, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the
employer’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that although
an employee who travels to and from work generally “‘acts only for his
own purposes’” “a special circumstance” existed, “whereby the
employee may have actually been conducting some manner of company
business at the same time that he was on the way to work when the
accident occurred” and that a jury issue therefore existed as to
respondeat superior. Id. at 840 (citation omitted).
In Hunter, there was evidence that within moments of a shift
supervisor’s colliding with another car while he was driving to work,
the supervisor called a co-worker, and the co-worker called the
supervisor back, but the supervisor did not answer the call. See 287
Ga. App. at 690. The supervisor testified during his deposition that he
saw the co-worker’s name appear on his cell phone screen and thought
the co-worker was calling because he was going to be late or needed
something for his job as a welder. See id. The Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, holding 29 that there was evidence that the supervisor “may have been on his cell
phone regarding company business when the accident occurred or that
he might have been distracted by an incoming call from [the co-
worker], whom [the supervisor] knew was calling to tell him that he
would be late or that he needed something for his work as a welder
when he arrived” and that this evidence raised a jury question as to
whether the supervisor “was acting within the scope of his employment
upon the existence of business-related special circumstances at the
time of the accident.” Id. at 691.
The Court of Appeals in this case concluded that Clo White and
Hunter established that when there is evidence that an employee
caused a car accident “while commuting to work when he is on the
phone regarding business-related matters or is distracted by an
incoming business-related call,” there are “special circumstances”
sufficient to raise a jury question regarding respondeat superior.
Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 378. But the test as to whether a respondeat-
superior claim survives summary judgment is not whether there is
evidence that an employee’s use of her phone was “business-related,”
but whether there is evidence that the use of the phone was in 30 furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of the
employee’s employment. See, e.g., Hicks, 286 Ga. at 865; Palladino,
276 Ga. at 613. Clo White and Hunter incorrectly focused on whether
the phone calls at issue in those cases were merely related to the
employee’s work, thus failing to undertake the required analysis of
whether or not there was evidence that the calls were made in
furtherance of the employers’ business and within the scope of
employment. To the extent that Clo White or Hunter suggests that a
phone call that is merely related to the employer’s business (rather
than in furtherance of the business and within the scope of the
employee’s employment) is sufficient evidence to raise a jury question
as to the issue of respondeat superior, we disapprove them. See Clo
White, 263 Ga. App. at 840 (concluding that the employee “may have
actually been on the phone regarding matters of company business at
the time of the accident,” with no analysis as to whether or not, as a
matter of law, the employee’s phone calls to his employer were made
in furtherance of his employer’s business and within the scope of
employment) (emphasis omitted); Hunter, 287 Ga. App. at 691
(determining that the evidence showed that the shift supervisor “may 31 have been on his cell phone regarding company business when the
accident occurred or that he might have been distracted by an
incoming call from [the co-worker],” and citing Clo White, without
analyzing whether or not the supervisor was acting in furtherance of
the business and within the scope of employment when he made the
phone call or became “distracted” by the incoming call).
(c) Having clarified the proper framework for assessing the issue
of respondeat superior when an employee commits a tortious act while
commuting to or from work or during a lunch break, we note that some
of the language in the Court of Appeals’s opinion in this case is in line
with this framework. See Cotton, 363 Ga. App. at 380 (“The test for
whether University Childcare may be found liable for Bouie’s actions
is whether she was at the time of the injury ‘engaged in the master’s
business’ or ‘at that time serving the master’”) (quoting Clo White, 263
Ga. App. at 840). However, the Court of Appeals’s opinion also heavily
relied on the “special circumstances exception” and the imprecise
language in Clo White and Hunter, which we have now disapproved.
We therefore vacate the Court of Appeals’s opinion and remand the
case to that court so that it can apply the appropriate analysis in the 32 first instance.7
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur.
PETERSON, Presiding Justice, concurring.
I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately to note my
suspicion that the question we properly remand for the Court of
Appeals to decide in the first instance is not the kind of question that
is well-suited for a decision as a matter of law.
Among the first rights that the Georgia Constitution guaranteed
the people of Georgia was the right to trial by jury, and the
Constitution has held that right inviolate ever since. In that light,
summary judgment is proper only if “no rational juror could resolve
the issue in the non-moving party’s favor.” Ga. CVS Pharmacy, LLC v.
Carmichael, 316 Ga. 718, 725 (II) (B) (890 SE2d 209) (2023).
7 The concurrence expresses skepticism that the evidence presented in
this case could warrant summary judgment. Some of us are less skeptical that a set of circumstances like the ones presented in this case could establish, as a matter of law, that an employee was not acting in furtherance of her employer’s business and within the scope of employment. However, we agree with the concurrence that we need not decide that question here to conclude that the special-circumstances exception is not the framework to evaluate a claim of respondeat superior. 33 It seems to me that this will be a hard threshold to meet in cases
like this one. It makes sense that an employee’s commute is neither
within the scope of employment nor in the furtherance of the
employer’s business; after all, a commute is principally the result of
the employee’s choice of where to live, a matter that will almost never
be within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer’s
business. But the question of scope and furtherance becomes more
complicated when an employee does something work-related during
the commute. When our commute rule emerged nearly a century ago,
the state of technology did not permit such multi-tasking, and so such
complications did not really exist. But today, technology enables many
employees to make commute time as productive as office time (if not
more so).
The Court of Appeals’ “special circumstances exception” and its
factors represented an effort to bring analytical structure to the
difficult question of when work-related activity during a commute
satisfies the scope and furtherance requirements. I agree with the
majority that scope and furtherance determinations are not
susceptible to the kind of structure the Court of Appeals developed, 34 and so we properly overrule it. But in the absence of that kind of
structure, it seems to me that the question of when mid-commute
work-related activity rises to the level of scope and furtherance will
almost always be for a jury to decide.
That said, the majority properly concludes that the question in
this case is for the Court of Appeals to decide in the first instance. So
— like the majority — I express no view on the answer.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Boggs, Justice
Ellington, and Justice Pinson join in this concurrence.
Decided October 11, 2023.
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 363 Ga. App.
376.
Gray Rust St. Amand Moffett & Brieske, Matthew G. Moffett,
M. Ryan Del Campo, for appellant.
Blaine A. Norris, John R. Autry, for appellee.