## Facts

- Dannice Clark was injured in an April 1996 automobile collision caused by Wanda Chatham’s alleged negligent driving.
- At the time of the collision, Chatham was employed by Vincent, Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C., a law firm that later continued in a successor configuration as Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C.
- Chatham was driving her personal vehicle while running an errand to deliver a check for telephone service for Vincent, Berg, Stalzer & Menendez, P.C., a new law firm not yet open for business.
- Chatham had agreed to begin working for Vincent Berg shortly after the collision.
- Clark sued Chatham for negligence and sued Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. under respondeat superior as the successor to Chatham’s then-current employer.

## Issues

1. Whether Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. could be vicariously liable under respondeat superior when its employee, while still employed, caused an accident while performing an errand benefiting a different firm.
2. Whether the evidence created a jury question that the employee acted within the scope of employment for Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C., despite the errand being for another entity.

## Decision

- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held that, as a matter of law, Chatham was not acting within the scope of her employment for Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. at the time of the collision.
- The Court reinstated summary judgment for Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. on the respondeat superior claim.

## Legal Principles

- An employer is generally liable for torts committed by an employee only when the tort occurs in the prosecution and within the scope of the employer’s business.
- An employer is not liable when the employee’s tort arises from conduct entirely disconnected from the employer’s business, even if the employment relationship exists at the time.
- Summary judgment is proper on scope-of-employment questions when undisputed facts show no reasonable factfinder could conclude the employee was furthering the employer’s business.

## Conclusion

Because the employee’s trip was to deliver a check for a separate, not-yet-operating law firm rather than to further the business of her current employer, the Georgia Supreme Court held the errand was outside the scope of employment and the employer could not be held vicariously liable.


Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. v. Clark, 539 S.E.2d 139 (Ga. 2000)