Wittig v. Spa Lady, Inc. of Marietta
| Decision Date | 07 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 73759,73759 |
| Citation | 182 Ga.App. 689,356 S.E.2d 665 |
| Parties | WITTIG v. SPA LADY, INC. OF MARIETTA. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Martin L. Cowen III, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Robert P. Wildau, William F. Clark, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant Christine Wittig appeals from a directed verdict for appellee, Spa Lady, Inc. of Marietta, Georgia, on an action by Wittig alleging an agent of Spa Lady forged her name to a contract and subsequent collection efforts by a collection agency and a law firm invaded her privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. At the close of appellant's evidence, the trial court granted appellee's motion for directed verdict and Wittig brings this appeal. Held:
It was not contested that an employee of Spa Lady had forged Wittig's name to a Spa Lady contract after unsuccessfully soliciting her business. After the first monthly payment became due, Wittig received a letter from Paramount Acceptance, the collecting branch of the corporation that owns both Spa Lady and Paramount, requesting remittance of the monthly dues. Wittig informed Paramount that she had not signed the contract and Paramount requested her to send in a copy of her driver's license so that they could compare her signature to the one on the contract. Wittig at first agreed, but after discussing the matter with her sister, declined to do so, for she reasoned that Spa Lady had already forged her name to a contract and if they received a legitimate copy of her signature, they could perfect the forged signature. Eventually Paramount sent a copy of the forged contract to Wittig and then turned the account over to a law firm for collection. After some correspondence from the law firm, Wittig consulted with a lawyer and filed this action.
The trial court found no evidence that Spa Lady had any knowledge of the forgery before attempting collection, nor did they ratify such act after it was discovered. The court also found that there was no evidence that at the time of the forgery that the employee was acting for the purpose of promoting the master's interest nor had the employee been engaged in doing this for the master or had been directed to do so by the master. We agree and affirm.
Our Code states 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...." OCGA § 51-2-2. But, our appellate courts have followed a long line of authorities citing the general rule that " '[i]n determining the liability of the master for the negligent or wilful acts of a servant, the test of liability is, not whether the act was done during the existence of the employment, but whether it was done within the scope of the actual transaction of the master's business for accomplishing the ends of his employment.' " Sexton...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. U.S.
...in furtherance of his employer's business"); Wallace v. ARA Servs., Inc., 365 S.E.2d 461, 463 (Ga.Ct.App.1988); Wittig v. Spa Lady, Inc., 356 S.E.2d 665, 666 (Ga.Ct.App.1987); Southern Bell Tel & Tel Co. v. Sharara, 167 Ga.App. 665, 307 S.E.2d 129, 131 (1983). By contrast, when an employee ......
-
Clark v. Chorey, Taylor & Feil, PC
...transaction of the master's business for accomplishing the ends of his employment. ( Punctuation omitted.) Wittig v. Spa Lady, Inc., 182 Ga.App. 689, 690, 356 S.E.2d 665 (1987). In this case, it is clear that Chatham was not acting on Vincent, Chorey's behalf at the time of the accident. To......
-
Security Life Ins. Co. v. Clark
...from a doing of the act, the servant may be liable, but the master is not liable.' (Punctuation omitted.) Wittig v. Spa Lady, etc., 182 Ga.App. 689, 690, 356 S.E.2d 665 (1987)." Id. at 568-569, 487 S.E.2d Here, as brought out by the Clarks, Fipps was not formally authorized by Security to s......
-
Wright v. Transus, Inc.
...Insurance Company, was proper. Coffee Chrysler etc. v. Nasworthy, 198 Ga.App. 757, 758, 403 S.E.2d 453 (1991); Wittig v. Spa Lady, 182 Ga.App. 689, 690, 356 S.E.2d 665 (1987); see Mountain v. Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co., 205 Ga.App. 119, 120(1), 421 S.E.2d 284 (1992). Compare U.S. Fidelit......