Schofield v. Cox Enters., Inc.

10 Citing cases

  1. Evans v. Joyner

    195 Va. 85 (Va. 1953)   Cited 8 times
    Adopting this rule as the controlling law in Virginia

    The trend of opinions in other Virginia cases is more favorable to the American than to the English rule. Where notes or other choses in action secured by a lien on land are assigned, the order of payment of the proceeds of sale of the land is determined by the order of time of the assignment and not by the order in which the notes fall due, unless otherwise expressly provided. Schofield v. Cox, 8 Gratt. 533; Paxton v. Rich, 85 Va. 378, 7 S.E. 531; Waynesboro Nat. Bank v. Smith, 151 Va. 481, 145 S.E. 302; Williams v. Gifford, 139 Va. 779, 124 S.E. 403. The general rule applied in Virginia and West Virginia is that where creditors and the purchasers of an assignment have no superior equities among themselves and are not entitled to a preference over each other on that ground, he who is first in time is first in priority.

  2. Stembridge v. Pride Util. Constr. Co.

    365 Ga. App. 296 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that "[b]ecause Reed was driving his own car, rather than Pride's vehicle, at the time of the accident, there is no presumption that he was acting in the scope of his employment"

    Rather, we have typically required something more — some affirmative act by the employee to benefit the employer in order to place the commute in the scope of employment. See Archer Forestry v. Dolatowski , 331 Ga. App. 676, 679-680 (3), 771 S.E.2d 378 (2015) (no special circumstances existed to hold employer liable where employee was on commute home and there was no evidence he was engaged in any work-related phone calls during the drive); Tyner v. Comfort Rest Sleep Products , 236 Ga. App. 423, 424, 512 S.E.2d 321 (1999) (no special circumstances where employee's vehicle contained employer's materials); Schofield v. Cox Enterprises , 212 Ga. App. 354, 354-355, 441 S.E.2d 693 (1994) (no exception where employee received vehicle stipend); Braddy v. Collins Plumbing & Constr. , 204 Ga. App. 862, 864, 420 S.E.2d 806 (1992) (fact that employee's truck had two-way radio for communications with employer, as well as parts and tools for use of other employees insufficient to apply exception); compare Cotton v. Prodigies Child Care Mgmt. , 363 Ga. App. 376, 380-381, 870 S.E.2d 112 (2022) (factual question regarding special circumstances where employee was trying to call employer while driving to report that she would be late returning from her lunch break, in accordance with workplace policy); Hunter v. Modern Continental Constr. Co. , 287 Ga. App. 689, 691, 652 S.E.2d 583 (2007) (factual question about whether employee was on a call regarding company business during commute to work raised jury question about special circumstances exception); Clo White , 263 Ga. App. at 840, 590 S.E.2d 381 (same). Here, Stembridge points to the rig rate, the show-up pay, the presence of P

  3. Farzaneh v. Merit Construction Co. Inc.

    309 Ga. App. 637 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming summary judgment to employer in a case involving employee who injured a pedestrian while driving his own vehicle to an assigned job site from his home by holding that "in commuting to an assigned job site as he did every day of the work week, [the employee] was not on an errand or mission that could be characterized as special or uncustomary" (punctuation omitted)

    Hankerson v. Hammett, 285 Ga. App. 610, 612-613 (1) ( 647 SE2d 319) (2007) (employee was "on call" and was driving truck "loaded with parts and materials"); Tyner v. Comfort Rest Sleep Products, 236 Ga. App. 423, 425 ( 512 SE2d 321) (1999) (employee was driving vehicle containing "employer's materials"); Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, 212 Ga. App. 354 ( 441 SE2d 693) (1994) (employee received vehicle stipend); Braddy, 204 Ga. App. at 864 (employee was driving truck with a two-way radio installed for communicating to employer; truck contained parts and tools for use of other employees); Fred A. York, Inc. v. Moss, 176 Ga. App. 350, 351-352 ( 335 SE2d 618) (1985) (employee had beeper in car); Johnstown Financial Corp., 170 Ga. App. at 576-577 (stipend issued to employee for vehicle expenses). Special circumstances do exist where at the time of the collision, an employee is talking on his cell phone discussing matters of company business or is distracted by an incoming business-related call.

  4. Remediation Resources v. Balding

    281 Ga. App. 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 24 times
    Denying summary judgment as to negligent supervision where employee "had received two speeding tickets and was involved in two minor car accidents" in the past twenty-two years

    See also V. S. Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Skinner, 188 Ga. 823 ( 5 SE2d 9) (1939) (summary judgment appropriate when employee was on a purely personal trip to eat dinner while out of town on business). Several cases cited by Remediation are distinguishable because the employee was not driving a company vehicle. See, e.g., Hargett's Telephone Contractors v. McKeehan, 228 Ga. App. 168, 169 ( 491 SE2d 391) (1997); Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, 212 Ga. App. 354 ( 441 SE2d 693) (1994). The trial court correctly denied summary judgment on this issue.

  5. Patterson v. Southeastern Newspapers, Inc.

    243 Ga. App. 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 23 times
    Granting summary judgment when there was no evidence employer knew or should have known of employee's bad driving record and there was no evidence employer's hiring procedures were faulty

    Although reasonable minds could differ, there is an issue of fact as to whether Bourgoin was acting in the scope of his employment when he went in on Thursday morning, and therefore the court erred in granting summary judgment to Southeastern on this legal theory. Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, 212 Ga. App. 354 ( 441 S.E.2d 693) (1994), is not controlling. There the employee was on his way home from his scheduled daily work and on a personal errand. Id. at 354.

  6. Hargett's, Etc. v. McKeehan

    228 Ga. App. 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 19 times
    Reversing denial of employer's motion for summary judgment because employee's conduct in traveling to multiple job sites, as his job normally required, could "in no way be considered a ‘special mission’ or errand done at the direction of his employer"

    ' [Cits.]" Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, 212 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 441 S.E.2d 693) (1994) (Emphasis original). "The law is clear that in the absence of special circumstances a servant in going to and from work in an automobile acts only for his own purposes and not for those of his employer.

  7. Yow v. Federal Paper Board Co.

    216 Ga. App. 652 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 6 times

    Curtis, Inc. v. Kelley, 167 Ga. App. 118, 119 ( 305 S.E.2d 828) (1983)." Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, 212 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 441 S.E.2d 693) (1994). Here, there is insufficient evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature to contradict Carter's statement that he was driving his work vehicle home for the purpose of getting home, nothing more. Braddy v. Collins Plumbing c., 204 Ga. App. 862, 864 ( 420 S.E.2d 806) (1992).

  8. Gordy Constr. Co v. Stewart

    456 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 13 times

    Here, there has been no evidence presented by appellees which would qualify as the "other evidence" needed under Allen Kane's, supra, to overcome the positive and uncontradicted testimony of Strack. Therefore, I believe summary judgment was demanded in Gordy's favor. Braddy, supra; see also Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, 212 Ga. App. 354 ( 441 S.E.2d 693) (1994); Riel v. Paulding County Bd. of Ed., 206 Ga. App. 230 (1) ( 425 S.E.2d 305) (1992); Wright v. Transus, Inc., 209 Ga. App. 771, 775 (2) ( 434 S.E.2d 786) (1993) (Andrews, J., dissenting). I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Beasley and Presiding Judge Birdsong join in this dissent.

  9. O'Shea v. Welch

    350 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that a "slight deviation" for "personal business" is still within the scope of employment if it "is sufficiently related to the employment"

    Id. Similarly, in Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 212 Ga.App. 354, 441 S.E.2d 693 (Ga.Ct.App. 1994), a newspaper delivery person worked a morning and an afternoon shift, and the time between the shifts was personal, unpaid time. The delivery person had some unsold papers to return to his employer.

  10. O'Shea v. Welch

    Case No. 01-2336-JWL (D. Kan. Mar. 21, 2002)   Cited 1 times

    While the court has not found any analogous Kansas cases addressing this issue, the court has found two other cases addressing the argument made by plaintiff. In Schofield v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 441 S.E.2d 693 (Ga.Ct.App. 1994), an employee who was required to furnish his own transportation to deliver newspapers to vending machines on a specific route stopped at a service station for an adjustment to the front-end alignment on his van. He stopped at the station on his way to return unsold newspapers to his employer.