" American Oil Co. v. McCluskey, 119 Ga. App. 475, 477 (2a) ( 167 S.E.2d 711). See West Point Pepperell, Inc. v. Knowles, 132 Ga. App. 253 ( 208 S.E.2d 17); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Scott, 132 Ga. App. 245 ( 207 S.E.2d 705); Harden v. Clarke, 123 Ga. App. 142 ( 179 S.E.2d 667); Marketing Sales Industries v. Roberts, 118 Ga. App. 718 ( 165 S.E.2d 319). This test, which looks to the relation or nonrelation of the tortious act to that which the servant was employed to do, has been variously stated as: whether or not the act was done to accomplish the ends of the servant's employment ( McGhee v. Kingman Everett, Inc., 49 Ga. App. 767, 768 (2) ( 176 S.E. 55)); whether the act is so closely connected with the servant's employment as to be found a part thereof ( Minnesota Mining c. Co. v. Ellington, 92 Ga. App. 24 ( 87 S.E.2d 665)); and whether the wrongful act was done in carrying on the normal functions of the servant's employment ( Godfrey v. Home Stores, Inc., 101 Ga. App. 269 ( 114 S.E.2d 202)).
Massey v. Henderson, 138 Ga. App. 565, 567 ( 226 S.E.2d 750) (1976), aff'd 238 Ga. 217 ( 232 S.E.2d 53) (1977). Accord West Point Pepperell v. Knowles, 132 Ga. App. 253 ( 208 S.E.2d 17) (1974); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Scott, 132 Ga. App. 245 ( 207 S.E.2d 705) (1974); Harden v. Clarke, 123 Ga. App. 142 ( 179 S.E.2d 667) (1970). See also Grant v. Jones, 168 Ga. App. 690, 691 ( 310 S.E.2d 272) (1983).
See Evans, supra; Collins, supra. See generally Elam v. Ins. Co. of North America, 134 Ga. App. 169 ( 213 S.E.2d 546) (1975); Stewart v. Roberts, 132 Ga. App. 700 ( 209 S.E.2d 119) (1974); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Scott, 132 Ga. App. 245, 247 ( 207 S.E.2d 705) (1974). Judgment affirmed. Quillian, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.