Vicarious liability for employers in Georgia car accidents

A Georgia employer answers for an employee’s driving when the employee was acting within the scope of the employer’s business at the time. O.C.G.A. § 51-2-2 is the source. When the vehicle belongs to the employer, a presumption helps the plaintiff, but uncontradicted evidence can overcome it, and then the plaintiff needs another fact. Since 2020, a company that admits this liability can also still face direct claims about its own hiring and supervision.

The basic rule

Section 51-2-2 says, “Every person shall be liable for torts committed by his wife, his child, or 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.” The part of that sentence relevant here is “servant” and “within the scope of his business”. The employer’s own fault is not needed on this theory.

The presumption and how it falls

Allen Kane’s Major Dodge v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776 (1979), is the Supreme Court decision on the framework.

Stage	Who has to do what
Vehicle owned by the employer, driven by the employee	A presumption arises that the driver was within the scope of employment
Employer and employee give uncontradicted testimony that the trip was personal	The presumption can be overcome
Plaintiff responds	Must show "some other fact which indicates the employee was acting within the scope"
That other fact is direct evidence	Enough for a jury
That other fact is circumstantial	Must meet the test for circumstantial evidence described in the opinion

The Court also said the presumption is “a difficult one to overcome” in the car salesman setting, because intent is known mainly to the driver. So phone records, delivery logs, GPS, time sheets, and company messages can decide this kind of case. If the employee drove their own car, this presumption does not provide the starting point, and the plaintiff has to prove scope from the evidence.

Situations that test the rule

For example, imagine these situations. They are the kind of facts a court would look at, and none is a fixed rule.

Facts	Question
Driver heading home from a shift	Was the trip personal, or was it for work?
Driver on a lunch run	Whose errand was it?
Company truck kept at home for on-call duty	What did the employer require, and was the driver responding?
Sales representative between customers	Is there any evidence of a personal detour?
Personal errand partway through a delivery route	How far did the trip depart, and had the driver returned to work?

Commuting and personal errands are defenses to expect. The answer turns on evidence of what the employee was doing and for whom. Ask early for trip records, because some of them are overwritten.

Contractors

Section 51-2-4 says an employer “generally is not responsible for torts committed by his employee when the employee exercises an independent business and in it is not subject to the immediate direction and control of the employer”. Section 51-2-5 lists six exceptions, including:

• work that is wrongful in itself or a nuisance;
• work dangerous however carefully performed, by the employer’s prior knowledge;
• violation of a duty imposed by express contract or by statute;
• retaining “the right to direct or control the time and manner of executing the work”; and
• ratification of the wrong.

A label in a contract is not the end of this. The right to control the time and manner is what the statute addresses, so a driver called a contractor may still fall within (5). App-based delivery and gig work can raise these questions, and a separate statute may apply to a given platform, so check current law for the specific company.

Commercial motor carriers

A truck under a carrier’s operating authority follows another theory. In PN Express v. Zegel, 304 Ga. App. 672 (2010), the Court of Appeals upheld an instruction on “statutory employment”, under which federal leasing regulations impose vicarious liability on a motor carrier for leased vehicles under its authority. That belongs to motor carrier liability.

Direct claims after Quynn v. Hulsey

Direct negligence means the company’s own fault, such as hiring a driver with a poor record, entrusting a vehicle, or failing to train or supervise. Older Georgia law let an employer that admitted respondeat superior get those claims dismissed unless punitive damages were in the case. In Quynn v. Hulsey, 310 Ga. 473 (2020), the Supreme Court held that § 51-12-33, the apportionment statute, “has abrogated the decisional law rule on which the Court of Appeals relied”.

The consequence is that a jury may assign fault to the company for its own conduct. The plaintiff still needs evidence for those claims. Negligent entrustment, for example, has turned on what the owner knew about the driver: in Bartja v. National Union, 218 Ga. App. 815 (1995), there was nothing to show the employer knew or should have known the driver tended to fall asleep at the wheel. Bartja’s separate respondeat superior point is no longer good law after Quynn.

How fault is divided between them

If the employer’s liability is only derivative, the employer and the driver are treated as one for this purpose. PN Express said that “where a party’s liability is solely vicarious, that party and the actively-negligent tortfeasor are regarded as a single tortfeasor”. It declined to treat them as separate persons on the apportionment form. If the company also has its own fault under a direct claim, a jury can assign that a separate share. Apportionment among defendants has the arithmetic.

Why it matters

The practical reason is coverage. An individual’s policy can be small, and a business may carry more. Georgia’s disclosure tool in § 33-3-28 lets a claimant ask an insurer for known policies, including umbrella coverage. Ask early, because the employer may need to be named before the deadline, and a suit against the driver alone will not stop the clock against a company that was not sued.

First moves when a company may be involved

1. Note the vehicle’s markings, plate, and any company or contractor name.
2. Ask the insurer and, if needed, the driver about the employer and policies.
3. Send a preservation letter for trip records, phone data, and driver files.
4. Find out the driver’s status: employee, contractor, or lessee.
5. Confirm the two-year date under § 9-3-33 for each possible defendant.

Sources

• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 33-3-28, 51-2-2, 51-2-4, 51-2-5, 51-12-33
• Allen Kane’s Major Dodge v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776
• Quynn v. Hulsey, 310 Ga. 473
• PN Express v. Zegel, 304 Ga. App. 672
• Bartja v. National Union, 218 Ga. App. 815

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.