Vicarious liability makes one party answer for another’s wrong because of the relationship between them. In Georgia the main source is O.C.G.A. § 51-2-2: a person is liable for torts committed by a “servant by his command or in the prosecution and within the scope of his business.” This covers the employer of an employee acting on the job, even when the employer did nothing careless itself.
The defense can contest one of two facts.
The first is scope of employment. A delivery driver hitting someone on a route is inside it. A driver who has left the route for a purely personal errand may be outside it, and that dispute can go to a jury.
The second is whether the person was an employee at all. Under § 51-2-4, an employer is generally not responsible for someone exercising “an independent business” free of its “immediate direction and control.” Section 51-2-5 then lists six exceptions, including work that is dangerous by nature, a duty imposed by statute or contract, and an employer that retains control over the time and manner of the work.
Vicarious liability is different from a direct claim against the employer for hiring, training, or supervising badly. Georgia’s Supreme Court held in Quynn v. Hulsey (2020) that the apportionment statute, § 51-12-33, abrogated the old rule that dismissed those direct claims once the employer admitted responsibility. A plaintiff can keep both in the case, and the jury can assign fault to each.
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.