Mastec N. Am., Inc. v. Sandford
Decision Date | 12 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. A14A1121.,A14A1121. |
Citation | 765 S.E.2d 420,330 Ga.App. 250 |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Parties | MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC. et al. v. SANDFORD et al. |
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Tracy Lynn Steele, Atlanta, James Russell Doyle II, for Appellants.
Hill & Bleiberg, Robert P. Bleiberg, Atlanta, for Appellees.
In this interlocutory appeal, Mastec North America, Inc. (“Mastec”) and DirecTV, Inc. (California) (“DirecTV”) appeal from the trial court's order denying their motion for summary judgment. They contend that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether a field technician was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time he ran a stop sign and collided with another vehicle. For the reasons explained below, we agree and therefore reverse.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Effingham County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Samwilka, Inc., 278 Ga.App. 521, 629 S.E.2d 501 (2006). So viewed, the record shows that Clifton Warnock was employed by Mastec as a field technician to go to the home of DirecTV customers to install and repair satellite TV equipment provided by DirecTV. At the time of the accident, Warnock was driving a Mastec work van. Warnock authorized Mastec to deduct $40 per week from his paycheck for the privilege of driving the work van to and from his home at the start and end of each workday.
Warnock's personnel file included documents in which he acknowledged the following:
Questions and Answers
...
Warnock testified that on the day of the accident, his two scheduled work orders “had fallen through.” He received a telephone call from his supervisor directing him to a new job on Creekview Drive in Newnan, Georgia. Information about this job was also entered into a computer system that Warnock could access through a hand-held device. Warnock did not have a preprinted work order for this job, because it was assigned after the start of the work day.
When Warnock completed his assigned work at a customer location, he was required to make an entry into his hand-held device before leaving the customer location to close out the job. Warnock testified that he closed out the Creekview Drive job on his hand-held device; he did not recall any other paperwork associated with this job. Warnock testified that he could not recall ever closing out a job on his hand-held device after returning home from his last job.
With regard to the time sheet that he was required to complete on a daily basis, Warnock testified that completing his time sheet was his last work activity of each work day. Warnock acknowledged that “most of the time” he completed his time sheet in his work van when the job was completed. When asked if he ever completed his time sheet after he arrived at home after the last job, Warnock replied, He could not recall any specific occasion when he completed a time sheet at home.
An eyewitness to the accident testified that when she was picking up loose papers on the ground after the accident, Warnock told her, “don't worry about that paperwork, we do so much as it is, we have so much paperwork to do I get that whenever.” Additional questioning during her deposition elicited the following response:
A Green Road Central Records satellite tracking device was installed on Warnock's work van that collected data about the start and stop time of a “trip” and whether high speeds were detected. The record includes a Green Road trip report for the date and time of the accident with an identification number of “57556” that does not include a driver's name for the date of the accident. It states the trip began at 6:59 p.m. and ended at 7:22 p.m. A 911 call reporting the accident was made at 7:23 p.m. While the trip report appears to have been produced by Mastec in discovery, no testimony or other evidence in the record explains how the trip data was collected or how the Green Road trip reports should be interpreted.
Mastec produced in discovery a weekly time sheet signed by Warnock with a handwritten date of “9/10/09” in the blank beside an entry for “Signature Date.” Warnock also handwrote an “end time” of 7:17 p.m. for his work on the date of the accident, which was September 10, 2009. Warnock testified that he did not have a specific recollection of his location when he signed the time sheet and he did not remember which of multiple potential clocks he may have looked at to determine the time before making his entry. He stated that he stopped at a gas station to get a snack after leaving the last customer's home before continuing on his way home. He explained that “perhaps [he] may have made a telephone call to [his] supervisor at some point.” He stated that he would have signed the time sheet at 7:17 p.m. on September 10, 2009. After repeated questioning during his deposition, Warnock stated he did not have a recollection of where and at what time he completed the time sheet.
Frank Casto, a DirecTV employee who worked with Warnock on his last job before the accident,1 testified that he witnessed the accident as he was following Warnock in a separate vehicle. He testified that both he and Warnock were headed home at the time of the accident. Casto testified that he did not see Warnock complete any paperwork at the conclusion of the job and agreed that it was possible to conclude that Warnock may have completed his time sheet at home after the accident. He stated that he would occasionally close out a job on his hand-held device at home because he could not get a signal on it at the customer location.
Following the accident, Henry and Tina Sandford filed a complaint against Mastec, DirecTV, and Warnock, alleging negligence and gross negligence against Warnock and seeking a recovery from Mastec and DirecTV under a theory of respondeat superior. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Mastec and DirecTV on the issue of respondeat superior, but later changed its mind and denied summary judgment on this issue. After the trial court granted a certificate of immediate review, this court granted Mastec and DirecTV's application for interlocutory appeal.
1. Appellants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment in their favor because the undisputed evidence shows that Warnock was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. We agree.
(Emphasis supplied.) Allen Kane's Major Dodge v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776, 777, 257 S.E.2d 186 (1979). Generally, an employee traveling to or from work “is not in the course of his employment but rather is engaged in a personal activity.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Farzaneh v. Merit Constr. Co., 309 Ga.App. 637, 639, 710 S.E.2d 839 (2011).
Where a tort occurs as a result of a vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC v. Love
... ... in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. McCullough , 212 So. 3d 69, 74 (Miss. 2017) (citing Simpson v. Boyd ... 1987) (emphasis added) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency 228 (Am. Law Inst. 1958) ). 13. Mar-Jac argues that Carter was not acting in the ... Id. at *4. 4 See also Mastec N. Am., Inc. v. Sandford , 330 Ga.App. 250, 765 S.E.2d 420 (2014) ; ... ...
-
Graham v. Hospice Savannah, Inc.
... ... accord Hicks v. Heard, 286 Ga. 864, 865 (692 S.E.2d ... 360) (2010); Mastec N. Am., Inc. v. Sandford, 330 ... Ga.App. 250, 254 (1) (765 S.E.2d 420) (2014); Wood v. B ... ...
-
Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Naville-Saeger
... ... AJC Intl., 284 Ga. App. 22, 24-25 (2), 643 S.E.2d 780 (2007) ; Mastec North America v. Sandford , 330 Ga. App. 250, 256-257 (1), 765 S.E.2d 420 (2014). The Plaintiffs ... ...
-
Archer Forestry, LLC v. Dolatowski
... ... 534, 535, 718 S.E.2d 806 (2011) (emphasis supplied).7 See Mastec North America v. Wilson, 325 Ga.App. 863, 867868, 755 S.E.2d 257 (2014) ... Sandford, 330 Ga.App. 250, 254 255(1), 765 S.E.2d 420 (2014) (citation omitted).13 ... ...
-
Labor and Employment Law
...at 131.74. See generally Archer Forestry, LLC v. Dolatowski, 331 Ga. App. 676, 771 S.E.2d 378 (2015); Mastec N. Am., Inc. v. Sandford, 330 Ga. App. 250, 765 S.E.2d 420 (2014), reconsideration denied (Dec. 8, 2014), cert. denied, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 160 (2015); CGL Facility Mgmt., LLC v. Wiley, 3......