WERE YOU HURT IN A CAR ACCIDENT WITH SOMEONE WORKING AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH?

When an employee is involved in a collision while operating a vehicle owned by his employer, a presumption arises that he is acting within the scope of his employment. International Business Machines v. Bozardt, 156 Ga.App. 794, 794–795, 275 S.E.2d 376 (1980). The burden then shifts to the employer “to rebut the presumption by evidence that is clear, positive and uncontradicted and that shows the servant was not in the scope of his employment.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. If the employer presents evidence that the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment,

[t]he employer is thereafter entitled to summary judgment unless “other facts” are proffered—that is, additional evidence other than the fact that the vehicle was owned by the employer—from which a jury could reasonably infer that the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred. Where the “other facts” are direct evidence, such is sufficient for the case to go to the jury. Where the “other facts” are circumstantial, however, such evidence will not defeat the employer’s motion for summary judgment, unless it is sufficient to support a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.