Gaylor v. Jay & Gene's Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc.

Decision Date08 June 1987
Docket NumberNo. 74497,INC,CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH-DODG,74497
Citation183 Ga.App. 255,358 S.E.2d 655
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
PartiesGAYLOR v. JAY & GENE'S

Douglas L. Breault, Columbus, for appellant.

Joseph L. Waldrep, J. Madden Hatcher, Jr., Columbus, for appellee.

BANKE, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, John C. Gaylor, sued the appellee, Jay & Gene's Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., to recover in tort for personal injuries he allegedly suffered at the hands of the appellee's used car sales manager, Wayne Hamm. The appellant contends that while he was working under Hamm's immediate supervision as a car salesman in the appellee's employ, Hamm asked him if he had ever finger wrestled before and then, despite his protestations that he did not want to finger wrestle, grabbed one of his hands, locked fingers with him, and twisted and broke one of his knuckles. Although Hamm was named as a defendant below, he is not a party to the present appeal.

The appellee raised several defenses to the appellant's claim, among them that it fell within the exclusive province of the Workers' Compensation Act and therefore was not actionable in tort. See generally OCGA § 34-9-11. The appellant thereupon filed a workers' compensation claim, which was ultimately denied by the board for the stated reason that "claimant was injured by the willful act of the third person directed against him in a form of play and it was not a part of claimant's employment, and it did not advance [the employer's] business in any fashion whatsoever." 1 The appellee then moved for and was granted summary judgment in the present action on the ground that Hamm's alleged misconduct could not, under these circumstances, be imputed to the appellee under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This appeal followed. Held:

Although Hamm testified that the appellant's involvement in the finger-wrestling contest was voluntary and consensual, we are, for purposes of this appeal, bound by the appellant's testimony to the contrary. "On a motion for summary judgment the burden of establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact is upon the moving party and all doubts are to be resolved against the movant. The movant has that burden even as to issues upon which the opposing party would have the trial burden...." Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45, 195 S.E.2d 429 (1973).

Similarly, the affidavits submitted by the appellee to establish that "horseplay" in general and finger wrestling in particular were not within the scope of Hamm's duties as the used car manager create, at most, a material factual conflict on that issue. In his deposition, Hamm testified that although such "horseplay" among the employees was not a "normal, ... everyday occurrence," it did happen with some degree of regularity, "maybe once a week or maybe once every two months." More importantly, in response to questioning on the issue of whether such conduct was forbidden by his superiors, he testified as follows: "You know, being a manager, I was the used car sales manager at the time, you know, you are trying to keep a rapport with your sales people and you have to keep them sort of motivated and pumped up and sometimes that entails joking with them a little bit or keeping them pumped up and, you know, you play around with them a little bit to get some common ground to get the guy to feel good and you joke around with them a little bit. It's just part of doing business, you know."

We find this testimony amply sufficient to create a material factual conflict on the issue of whether Hamm's alleged misconduct occurred within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the appellee's business. See generally OCGA § 51-2-2. The fact that the alleged tort was intentional rather than negligent does not, in and of itself, preclude the doctrine of respondeat superior from being considered applicable. "The master is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Bendiburg v. Dempsey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • January 5, 1989
    ...at bar, it is undisputed that all defendants were acting within the scope of their employment. See Gaylor v. Jay & Gene's Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 183 Ga.App. 255, 358 S.E.2d 655 (1987). 30 The state defendants have not raised any defense to plaintiff's "joint tortfeasor" theory of li......
  • Rausch v. POCATELLO LUMBER COMPANY, INC.
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 2000
    ...have been included in store manager's duties to socialize with customers to stimulate business); Gaylor v. Jay & Gene's Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge Inc., 183 Ga.App. 255, 358 S.E.2d 655 (1987) (testimony that sales manager engaged in finger wrestling with sales staff as a method of keeping a ra......
  • City of Rome v. Jordan
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1993
    ...party rely on the promise of the municipality to her detriment. 5 3. When construed in favor of the Jordans, Gaylor v. Jay & Gene's Chrysler, 183 Ga.App. 255, 256, 358 S.E.2d 655 (1987), the evidence in this case shows that Hoyt Marks appeared at Patricia and Cary Jordan's home early one mo......
  • Yaeger v. Canadair, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 19, 1988
    ...that burden even as to issues upon which the opposing party would have the trial burden.... [Cit.]" Gaylor v. Jay, etc., Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, 183 Ga.App. 255, 256, 358 S.E.2d 655 (1987). Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. See generally ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT