Matheson v. Braden

The defendant's employee was not acting within the scope of his employment with the defendant when he collided with the plaintiffs' care while driving the defendant's truck.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case involves a vicarious liability action brought by Clyta and Howard Matheson the “Mathesons” against Mark Braden for injuries the Mathesons received from a vehicle collision caused by Braden’s employee, Daoberto Peres.1 The trial court granted Braden’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the direct, positive and uncontradicted testimony showed that at the time of the collision, Peres was driving to his own residence for the purely personal purpose of having lunch, and that therefore, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Peres was acting within the scope of his employment at the time the accident occurred. We agree and find that, as a matter of law, Braden cannot be held vicariously liable for the Mathesons’ injuries under the doctrine of respondeat superior. “Summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the facts and evidence and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-movant, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to each essential element of the case.” Citations omitted. Rubin v. Cello Corp. , 235 Ga. App. 250, 251 510 SE2d 541 1998. On appeal of a grant of summary judgment, we must review the evidence de novo to determine whether the trial court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material facts remain and that the party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 250.

So viewed, the record reflects that Braden is a farmer/rancher who lives and works on his farm. Braden testified that individuals would often come to his farm looking for work, and that in March 2007, Peres approached Braden’s farm for a job. Braden needed assistance on the farm at that time and hired Peres to perform duties, which included driving a tractor, feeding and working with cows, working on fences, and other general tasks. Every day during the first six months of Peres’ employment, Peres brought his own food and ate his lunch onsite.

Matheson v. Braden

The defendant's employee was not acting within the scope of his employment with the defendant when he collided with the plaintiffs' care while driving the defendant's truck.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report