In this personal injury case, we granted Georgia Messenger Service, Inc.’s “GMS” application for interlocutory appeal in order to review whether the trial court erred in denying GMS’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons noted infra , we affirm. Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the nonmovant, Vernetta Bradley,1 the record shows that on the afternoon of September 20, 2005, courier John W. S. Wise, Jr. arrived in front of the Palisades Office Park in Dunwoody to make one of his many deliveries that day on behalf of GMS. Wise attempted to park in the service parking spot designated for deliveries, but it was occupied at that time by Bradley’s security-guard vehicle, which she refused to move. Under time pressure and with many more scheduled deliveries, Wise parked directly in front of the building, “waved-off” Bradley’s vocalized objections to his doing so, and then ran inside to deliver the package. Less than a minute later, Wise emerged from the building to find Bradley applying a “boot” to his vehicle. Wise asked Bradley not to place the boot on his car, but she refused to accommodate his request. At this point, Bradley claims that Wise “violently kicked her in the head,”2 threw the boot into the bushes, and then drove away. Wise continued making deliveries for GMS until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. that evening.
Thereafter, Bradley sued Wise for assault and battery, and further asserted that GMS was both vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for Wise’s conduct and independently liable for its negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent entrustment of Wise. In Georgia Messenger Service, Inc. v. Bradley ,3 we reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to GMS on Bradley’s negligence claims after concluding that they failed as a matter of law,4 but then remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether Wise was an employee of GMS and, if so, whether he was working within the scope of that employment at the time of the incident so as to extend vicarious liability to GMS.5 On remand, the trial court denied GMS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether 1 GMS controlled the time, manner, and method of Wise’s delivery services, such that he was an employee rather than an independent contractor, and 2 Wise’s allegedly tortious conduct was within the scope of that employment relationship. This appeal follows.
