Slaton v. B & B Gulf Service Center, 71992

• Decision Date: 08 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 71992,71992
• Citation: 344 S.E.2d 512,178 Ga.App. 701
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: SLATON v. B & B GULF SERVICE CENTER et al.

Page 512

344 S.E.2d 512

178 Ga.App. 701

SLATON v.B & B GULF SERVICE CENTER et al.

No. 71992.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 8, 1986.

Paul S. Weiner, Jonesboro, Teddy G. Muntean, Atlanta, for appellant.

William D. Strickland, Decatur, for appellees.

POPE, Judge.

Lori Jean Slaton appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to appellees B & B Gulf Service Center, Robert M. Bailey, and Robert M. Bailey, Jr. Slaton brought this action for negligence and negligent hiring after she allegedly was assaulted and battered by Nathaniel D. Wallace, an employee of B & B Gulf.Slaton stopped at B & B Gulf on March 18, 1984 to ask for directions.Wallace offered to show her the way on a map in the office.Slaton testified at her deposition that when she entered the office, Wallace slammed the door and turned off the lights.She opened the door and Wallace turned the lights back on, grabbed her arm, and asked her if she wanted to party.She screamed, and Wallace grabbed her other arm.Slaton broke away, ran to her car and left the station.As soon as the Baileys learned of this incident, Wallace was fired.Wallace is not a party to this suit.Held:

1."OCGA § 51-2-2 provides: '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.''As construed in Frazier v. Southern Ry. Co., 200 Ga. 590, 593(37 SE2d 774)[(1946) ], "The word 'voluntarily' in [OCGA § 51-2-2] will cover any or all motives or purposes of the wrongdoer, acting in the scope of his employment, which are not covered by 'acts of negligence.'The true test is not whether the tort was commited by reason of anger, malice or ill will, but whether or not it was committed in the prosecution and within the scope of the master's business.If the tort be committed, not by reason of the employment, but because of matters disconnected therewith, the master would not be liable." ' "McCranie v. Langdale Ford Co., 176 Ga.App. 281, 282, 335 S.E.2d 667(1985).

The evidence in the present case does not support Slaton's contention that appellees are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior as set out above.Wallace's duties at the station, as stated in Robert Bailey's affidavit in support of appellees' motion for summary judgment, included filling customers' tanks with gas, and station maintenance.Bailey stated that Wallace was told specifically not to go into the office because he had no duties there.While Wallace may have been advancing his master's interest in taking Slaton to view the map, clearly he abandoned his master's interest and pursued only his own when he grabbed Slaton and asked her to "party."The trial court correctly granted summary judgment to appellees on the issue of respondeat superior.

2.Regarding the issue of negligent hiring, the record shows the affidavits of both of the Baileys.Each avers that he had no knowledge of any violent propensities by Wallace.Wallace...