...QUANG et al. COLVIN, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether physicians who supervised a medical student during a surgery could be held vicariously liable for any negligent acts or omissions that the medical student may have committed during the procedure, under OCGA § 51-1-38, general agency principles, or the borrowed servant doctrine....

...y could not be held vicariously liable for the medical student’s negligence. And a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, with the lead opinion, which was not joined by either of the other two judges on the panel, concluding that OCGA § 51-1-38 did not impose vicarious liability on the defendant physicians, and that, based on the evidence presented on summary judgment, the defendant physicians could not be held vicariously liable under general agency principles or the borrowed servant doctrine. See Statham v. Quang, 371 Ga. App. 55, 59-61 (a)-(c) (899 SE2d 275) (2024). As we explain below, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ lead opinion that OCGA § 51-1-38 (a statute that immunizes medical students from civil liability under certain circumstances) did not provide a basis for holding the defendant physicians vicariously liable....

...the defendant physicians were vicariously liable for any negligence committed by the medical student. And Defendants argued that they could not be held vicariously liable under general agency 4 principles, the borrowed servant doctrine, or OCGA § 51-1-38.1 On summary judgment, the following facts were undisputed. On August 12, 2019, Dr....

...We review summary judgment rulings de novo. See id. Here, the Court of Appeals’ lead opinion concluded that Defendants were entitled to partial summary judgment to the extent that Plaintiff sought to impose vicarious liability on them under OCGA § 51-1-38, general agency principles, or the borrowed servant doctrine. See Statham, 371 Ga. App. at 59-61 (a)-(c). We consider each of these rulings in turn. 10  (a) We begin by addressing the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of OCGA § 51-1-38, which provides: (a) No student who participates in the provision of medical care or medical treatment under the supervision of a medical facility, academic institution, or doctor of medicine, as a part of an aca...

...participation, except for willful or wanton misconduct. (b) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not be construed to affect or limit the liability of a medical facility, academic institution, or doctor of medicine. OCGA § 51-1-38 (a), (b)....

...(citation and punctuation omitted). “When . . . statutory text is clear and unambiguous, our interpretive task begins and ends with the text itself.” State v. Arroyo, 315 Ga. 582, 584 (883 SE2d 781) (2023). Here, the clear and unambiguous text of OCGA § 51-1-38 neither imposes vicarious liability on physicians for the conduct of medical students under their supervision, nor renders physicians immune from vicarious liability for medical students’ conduct....

...shall be liable for any civil damages” resulting from certain acts or omissions committed while “participat[ing] in the provision of medical care or medical treatment” — exempts medical students from civil liability when they provide medical care under the particular circumstances set out in the statute. OCGA § 51-1-38 (a). And the plain language of subsection (b) — which states that “[s]ubsection (a) ....

...medicine” — simply states that the exemption from liability for medical students in subsection (a) has no impact on the liability of a medical facility, academic institution, or physician who supervises a medical student when providing medical care. OCGA § 51-1-38 (b). Thus, while the statute exempts medical students from liability for their own acts or omissions under certain circumstances, the statute provides that supervising physicians remain liable as otherwise provided by law....

...under that doctrine. 3. As explained above, Defendants were not entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability because, while there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding their vicarious liability under OCGA § 51-1-38 or the borrowed servant doctrine, the evidence presented on summary judgment created a jury question as to whether the defendant physicians were vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for any negligence committed by the medical student during Plaintiff’s surgery....