Summary
In Elam v. Ins. Co. of North America, 134 Ga.App. 169, 213 S.E.2d 546 (1975), we rejected a similar argument and concluded that an employee was not acting within the scope of his employment while driving home, even though he intended to complete paperwork once he arrived at home.
Summary of this case from Mastec N. Am., Inc. v. SandfordOpinion
50207.
SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 10, 1975.
DECIDED MARCH 5, 1975.
Action for damages. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Hubert.
E. Graydon Shuford, for appellant.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley Wheeler, John E. Talmadge, for appellee.
"`As a general rule, a servant in going to and from his work in an automobile acts only for his own purposes and not for those of his employer, and consequently the employer is not to be held to be liable for an injury occasioned while the servant is en route to or from his work. 5 Blashfield's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, 196, § 3041. In this connection see Elrod v. Anchor Duck Mills, 50 Ga. App. 531, 533 ( 179 S.E. 188); U.S. Casualty Co. v. Scott, 51 Ga. App. 115 ( 179 S.E. 640); Welsh v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 61 Ga. App. 635 ( 7 S.E.2d 85).' Stenger v. Mitchell, 70 Ga. App. 563, 566 ( 28 S.E.2d 885). See also Chattanooga Publishing Co. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880 ( 114 S.E.2d 138); Ingram v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 111 Ga. App. 599 ( 142 S.E.2d 334)." Stewart v. Roberts, 132 Ga. App. 700, 701 ( 209 S.E.2d 119).
In the present action of the above nature, the trial judge did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant employer where the only showing contended to prove that the employee, driving his own automobile home from work, was acting within the scope of his employment, was that he was taking some of his employer's papers and work home with him to work on them at home, as he had done for the past several nights, at the time of the collision. Even if the employee be considered "at work" when he reached his home where he worked on his employer's business, at most he was still only "en route to or from his work" at the time of the collision under the above authorities, there being no showing that he was in continuous employment, as a traveling salesman. See Welsh v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 61 Ga. App. 635, 636, supra.
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.