Georgia Legal Guide: Employer Liability After a Georgia Car Accident — Can You Sue the Driver’s Employer?

By Bruce Millar September 14, 2026

Key Points:  

• If the driver who hit you was working at the time of the crash, Georgia law may allow you to pursue compensation from both the driver and the employer under O.C.G.A. § 51-2-2. 
• When an employee causes a crash while driving a vehicle owned by the employer, Georgia law generally presumes the employee was acting within the scope of employment unless the employer can show otherwise.   
• The employer can still be responsible even if the worker was using a personal vehicle for business purposes. 
• An employer may have commercial auto insurance, umbrella coverage, or other policies with much higher limits than the individual driver’s auto policy.  

If you were injured in a Georgia car accident caused by someone who was working at the time of the crash, the driver’s employer may also be responsible for your injuries. This can apply whether you were struck by a delivery van, company truck, contractor on a service call, or another employee driving for work. 

Identifying the employer can also uncover commercial insurance or other coverage that may provide additional compensation for your injuries.  

What Rights Do You Have If You Were Hit by a Worker in Georgia?  

If you were injured by someone acting within the scope of their employment, Georgia law may allow you to seek compensation from both the employee and the employer. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-2-2, employers can be responsible for torts committed by employees while acting in the prosecution of the employer’s business.  

Depending on the case, compensation may include:  

• Medical expenses;  
• Future medical treatment;  
• Lost income;  
• Lost earning capacity;  
• Pain and suffering; and  
• Other damages allowed under Georgia law.  

You may also have claims based on the employer’s own negligence, such as negligent hiring, retention, supervision, training, entrustment, or vehicle maintenance.  

When Is an Employer Legally Responsible for an Employee’s Car Accident in Georgia?  

To determine whether an employer is responsible for an employee’s car accident, Georgia courts generally consider whether, at the time of the crash, the employee was:  

• Acting within the scope of employment; and  
• Conducting the employer’s business, meaning the driving served the employer’s purposes rather than the employee’s own.  

If these requirements are met, the injured person may pursue both the at-fault employee and the employer. An employer may also be vicariously liable for punitive damages arising from an employee’s conduct within the scope of employment, even if the employer did not authorize or approve the conduct.   

What Does “Within the Scope of Employment” Mean Under Georgia Law?  

“Scope of employment” generally depends on what the employee was doing at the time of the crash and whether the driving served the employer’s interests.  

Driving may fall within the scope of employment when the employee is:  

• Making deliveries along an assigned route  
• Driving to or from a service call 
• Traveling between job sites during the workday  
• Running a business errand  
• Transporting company tools, equipment, or materials 
• Traveling to a required out-of-town business meeting 

Courts may consider whether the employee was dispatched, paid for driving time, carrying work materials, taking work calls, reimbursed for mileage, provided a vehicle stipend, or on call. 

There’s also a special mission rule. A trip that would normally be personal, such as driving from home, may fall within the scope of employment if the employee is performing a special service or errand at the employer’s request or direction. 

Does It Matter Whether the Employee Was Driving a Company Vehicle or Their Own Car?  

Vehicle ownership can be important, but does not determine whether an employer is liable. 

If an employee was driving the employer’s vehicle at the time of the crash, Georgia law presumes the employee was acting within the scope of employment.   

The employer can rebut this presumption with “clear, positive and uncontradicted” evidence that the employee was not acting within the scope of employment. If the employer rebuts it, the injured person must present some “other fact” from which a jury could still infer the employee was working.  

If the employee was driving a personal vehicle, the presumption doesn’t apply, but the employer may still be liable. The key question remains whether the employee was performing work for the employer at the time of the crash. 

Can an Employer Be Liable If the Employee Was Running Personal Errands?  

An employer may be liable when an employee combines work with personal activities. 

As a general rule, “an employee going to and from his work in an automobile acts only for his own purposes and not for those of his employer.” An ordinary commute usually falls outside the scope of employment. Exceptions may apply when the employee is carrying work materials, taking work calls, receiving a vehicle stipend, or on a special errand for the employer.  

Being on call does not automatically mean an employer is liable. An employee may still be on a purely personal trip, even while driving an employer-owned vehicle. 

A minor deviation from a work-related trip may remain within the scope of employment, while a substantial departure for purely personal reasons may take employees outside of it.  

An unpaid personal lunch trip is usually outside the scope of employment, while a work-related lunch or errand may fall within it. 

In addition, a trip does not necessarily have to serve only the employer’s interests. Georgia courts consider whether the employer’s business was a genuine purpose of the trip. 

Can an Employer Avoid Liability by Calling the Driver an Independent Contractor? 

Not necessarily. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-2-4, an employer generally is not responsible for the torts of a true independent contractor. However, O.C.G.A. § 51-2-5 provides exceptions, including when the employer retains the right to direct or control the time and manner of executing the work” — tracking § 51-2-5(5) or ratifies the unauthorized wrong.  

The label given to the worker does not determine the relationship. Georgia courts consider who had the right to control the time, manner, and method of the work. 

Facts that may indicate an employment relationship include whether the company:  

• Set the driver’s schedule, route, or order of stops  
• Required uniforms, branding, or a specific vehicle appearance  
• Supplied the vehicle, tools, phone, or scanner  
• Had the authority to discipline or fire the driver for how the work was performed  
• Monitored the driver’s performance through GPS or an app  
• Required the driver to work exclusively for that company  

What Evidence Can Prove the Employee Was Working at the Time of the Crash?  

Evidence showing what the employee was doing at the time of the crash may include: 

• Time records and payroll records showing whether the driver clocked in and was being paid 
• GPS and telematics data showing the employee’s route, speed, stops, and direction of travel  
• Dispatch logs and work orders showing who sent the employee where, and when  
• Delivery schedules, manifests, and route sheets documenting work-related travel  
• Emails, texts, app messages, and phone records showing work instructions or communications 
• Electronic logging devices (ELD) showing hours of service and duty status for commercial drivers  
• Dash camera and in-cab camera footage 
• Witness statements, including statements the driver made at the scene  
• Employment records showing the employee’s duties, mileage reimbursements, and vehicle policies 

Because electronic records may be routinely deleted or overwritten, a written evidence preservation (spoliation) letter can be used to request that the employer preserve relevant evidence. 

What Insurance Pays If an Employee Causes a Car Accident While Working?  

When an employee causes a crash while working, several sources of insurance coverage may apply:  

• Commercial automobile insurance. An employer’s business auto policy may provide coverage when an employee causes a crash while working. 
• The employee’s personal auto insurance. This may apply when an employee uses their own personal vehicle for work. Under the omnibus clause, the employer may qualify as an insured when it is vicariously liable under respondeat superior. However, this generally does not apply when the employer owns or leases the vehicle. Naming the employer as an additional insured under the employee’s policy does not increase that policy’s limits of liability. 
• Non-owned and hired auto coverage. A business policy may cover accidents involving vehicles the company does not own, including employees’ personal vehicles used for company business.  
• General liability insurance. Depending on the policy and its exclusions, this coverage may apply to claims based on the employer’s negligence. 
• Umbrella and excess liability policies. These policies provide additional coverage above the limits of the primary insurance policies and can be important when injuries are severe. 

Can an Employer Be Responsible for More Than Just the Employee’s Driving? 

Yes. An employer may be liable for its own negligence in addition to the employee’s conduct. Examples include: 

• Negligent hiring and retention. Under O.C.G.A. § 34-7-20, an employer must exercise ordinary care when hiring or retaining an employee. Liability may arise when an employer “knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the servant was incompetent.” 
• Negligent training or supervision. An employer may be liable when inadequate training causes the injury or when the employer knew or should have known about the employee’s tendency to engage in the behavior that caused the injury.   
• Negligent entrustment. This requires actual knowledge that the driver was incompetent because of age, inexperience, physical or mental condition, or a known habit of recklessness. Unlike negligent hiring, constructive knowledge is generally not enough — the plaintiff must show actual knowledge, or facts from which actual knowledge can reasonably be inferred. There is an important exception: where the owner is required by law to check the driver’s qualifications, such as a regulated motor carrier, the owner may be precluded from asserting that it lacked actual knowledge of the driver’s incompetence. Georgia also prohibits knowingly permitting a vehicle to be driven by an unlicensed or unauthorized person under O.C.G.A. § 40-5-122.   
• Failure to maintain company vehicles. An employer may also be responsible when poor vehicle maintenance, such as defective brakes or tires, contributes to the crash. 

Example: Mya’s Story 

The following example is fictional and provided for educational purposes only.  

Mya is stopped in traffic on Buford Highway in Metro Atlanta when a box truck rear-ends her at roughly 35 mph. She suffers a herniated disc requiring surgery and misses four months of work. The driver’s personal auto insurance is limited to $25,000, while Mya’s medical bills exceed $180,000. 

Mya’s attorney notices faded company lettering and a DOT number on the truck. A preservation letter requests GPS data, dispatch logs, the driver’s qualification file, and dash cam footage.  

The records show the driver was clocked in and making deliveries on an assigned route. Dispatch records and a text from his supervisor shortly before the crash established he was working. 

The employer claims the driver was an independent contractor. However, records show the company set his route and schedule, supplied the truck and handheld scanner, required company clothing, and could terminate him for missed delivery windows. 

In addition, the driver’s motor vehicle record shows two prior at-fault crashes and a suspended license period the company never checked, supporting claims for negligent hiring and retention under O.C.G.A. § 34-7-20. 

The investigation finds the company carries a $1 million commercial auto policy and a $4 million umbrella policy. Mya reaches a settlement covering her surgery, future care, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and pain and suffering. 

Myths and Facts About Employer Liability After a Georgia Car Accident  

Myth #1: “An employer is only responsible if the employee was driving a company vehicle.”  

Fact: Vehicle ownership can create a helpful presumption, but it does not determine employer liability. What matters is whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment and on the employer’s business.   

Myth #2: “A company is never responsible for an independent contractor.”  

Fact: Not necessarily. O.C.G.A. § 51-2-5 provides exceptions, and Georgia courts look past the label to who controlled the time, manner, and method of the work. 

Myth #3: “If the company admits the driver was working, there are no other claims against the company.”  

Fact: Under the former ‘Respondeat Superior Rule,’ an employer that conceded vicarious liability was entitled to summary judgment on those direct-negligence claims unless punitive damages were also validly sought. That rule has been abrogated by Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, so those claims may now proceed alongside the vicarious liability claim.