Common law.

- This section, which lays down the general rule, also follows the common law. Robinson v. Huidekoper, 98 Ga. 306, 25 S.E. 440 (1896).

Gratuitous bailments.

- Former Code 1882, §§ 2201 and 2961 did not vary the rule in respect to gratuitous bailments inasmuch as the degree of diligence touching such bailments is no higher under these sections than at common law. Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Guilmartin, 88 Ga. 797, 15 S.E. 831, 14 L.R.A. 322 (1892).

Principal is responsible for the torts of the agent when the agent is acting on behalf of the principal. DeDaviess v. U-Haul Co., 154 Ga. App. 124, 267 S.E.2d 633 (1980).

Agent's acts in line of duty.

- What an agent did in the line of duty devolved upon the agent by the superior will make the superior responsible under former Code 1873, §§ 2194 and 2201. Maddox & Rucker v. Cunningham, 68 Ga. 431, 45 Am. R. 500 (1882).

In determining the liability of the master for the negligent or willful acts of a servant, the test of liability is not whether the act was done during the existence of the employment, but whether it was done within the scope of the actual transaction of the master's business for accomplishing the ends of the servant's employment. McGhee v. Kingman & Everett, Inc., 49 Ga. App. 767, 176 S.E. 55 (1934).

In order to hold an automobile dealer liable for injuries inflicted by an automobile while being operated by a salesperson, the relation of master and servant must exist and the servant must, at the time, have been acting within the scope of the servant's employment in performing an act for the master's benefit. Nichols v. G.L. Hight Motor Co., 63 Ga. App. 155, 10 S.E.2d 439 (1940) (nonsuit granted dealer reversed), commented on in, 3 Ga. B.J. 63 (1940).

No matter how much authority a general agent may have, it is not to be presumed that the agent has authority to commit a tort, and in order to hold the defendant corporation liable for the act of the corporation's officer, such tort must have been committed during the prosecution of the business of the corporation as a part thereof or by authority of the corporation or be ratified by the corporation or assented to. King v. Citizens Bank, 88 Ga. App. 40, 76 S.E.2d 86 (1953).

Principal responsible if principal accepts contract procured by agent.

- Principal who accepts a contract procured by fraudulent conduct of an agent, regardless of such agent's authority, is bound by such fraudulent conduct of the agent in procuring such contract. W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Kelly, 78 Ga. App. 10, 50 S.E.2d 113 (1948).

When command or assent need not be shown.

- Principal may be liable for the willful tort of the principal's agent, done in the prosecution and within the scope of the principal's business, although it is not expressly shown that the principal either commanded the commission of the willful act or assented to the act. Planters Cotton Oil Co. v. Baker, 181 Ga. 161, 181 S.E. 671 (1935).

If the tort of the agent is committed in the prosecution and within the scope of the principal's business, it is done with the implied command or assent of the principal, and in such case it is unnecessary to make proof of an express command or assent. Planters Cotton Oil Co. v. Baker, 181 Ga. App. 161, 181 S.E. 671 (1935).

General rule applies to either agent or servant.

- Whether tort-feasor was an agent or a servant makes no difference in applying the doctrine of respondeat superior; if the servant's or agent's wrongful acts were in the prosecution of the defendant's business and within the scope of the employment, then the defendant is liable for such tortious conduct of the servant or agent, as the case may be. Prince v. Brickell, 87 Ga. App. 697, 75 S.E.2d 288 (1953).

To end general employer's liability, new employment must clearly appear.

- To show that the general employee or agent of one person has become the employee of another, with the effect of ending the general employer's responsibility for the acts of the agent, the new relation of the parties must clearly appear. Fleming v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 89 Ga. App. 837, 81 S.E.2d 529 (1954).

Agent's nonfeasance.

- If the appellant's agent for any reason fails to perform the agent's duty, the fault is chargeable to the principal and inures to the benefit of the opposite party. Broussard v. Brandenberg, 8 Ga. App. 795, 70 S.E. 159 (1911).

Agent's misfeasance.

- While an agent is personally liable to those injured by the agent's misfeasance, the agent is not ordinarily liable for mere nonfeasance, under former Code 1933, §§ 4-311 and 4-409. Kimbrough v. Boswell, 119 Ga. 201, 45 S.E. 977 (1903).

Liability when duty is owed by principal.

- Agent is not liable to third persons for the failure of the principal to discharge affirmative duties which the principal may owe. Verddier v. Neal Blun Co., 128 Ga. App. 321, 196 S.E.2d 469 (1973).

Only fraud preventing reading what is signed will relieve party.

- Only fraud which would relieve a party from an obligation which the party has signed, when that party can read and write and is not otherwise under any disability, is that fraud which prevents the party from reading what the party signed. Wall v. Federal Land Bank, 156 Ga. App. 368, 274 S.E.2d 753 (1980).

Blind reliance unjustified.

- No actionable fraud was demonstrated because as a matter of law the defendant's blind reliance upon any representation about the principal without any attempt whatsoever at direct contact with the principal was unjustified. B & W Pipeline, Inc. v. Newton County Bank, 181 Ga. App. 684, 353 S.E.2d 829 (1987).

Alleging principal by principal's agent committed wrongful act sufficiently pleads agency.

- One of the ways of pleading that agency existed so as to make alleged principal responsible for the wrongful acts of the agent is to allege by a simple direct statement that the defendant principal by the principal's agent committed the wrongful act. Garver v. Smith, 90 Ga. App. 892, 84 S.E.2d 693 (1954).

Connection of act with employment must be alleged.

- Principal or master being responsible for the negligent acts of the agent or servant only when done by command or within the scope of the employment, it is necessary, in an action seeking to charge one for the acts of another upon the theory that the latter was agent for the former, that the plaintiff's pleading should disclose, either expressly or by necessary implication, not only the existence of the agency, but also the connection of the act with the employment. Bates v. Southern Ry., 52 Ga. App. 576, 183 S.E. 819 (1936).

Agent's false parol representations may be shown.

- Statements and representations in parol made by an agent of one of the parties to a contract, which are offered for the purpose of showing that they were falsely and fraudulently made for the purpose of procuring the execution of the contract and that therefore no valid contract is in existence, are not subject to the objection that they are matters in parol in contradiction to the terms of a written instrument. Edge v. Alertox, Inc., 47 Ga. App. 598, 171 S.E. 181 (1933).

Error not to vacate nonsuit.

- Since there was evidence that defendant's explosives sales agent, in advising and instructing a county engineer as to the method of detonation and the quantities of explosives necessary to blast rock from the county's quarry, was acting in the scope of the agent's employment and in the prosecution of the defendant's business, and was not subject to the county's control in the performance of the agent's duties connected with the sales of explosives, and that, as a result of the negligence of the defendant's agent in instructing the county engineer to use a large quantity of explosives, to be detonated in a short time, a blast was performed in the county's quarry according to the instructions given, thereby causing the damage to the plaintiff's house as alleged, the court erred in refusing to vacate judgment on nonsuit and reinstate the plaintiffs' case. Fleming v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 89 Ga. App. 837, 81 S.E.2d 529 (1954).

Instruction based on section proper when agent's act was unintentional.

- If a trespass committed by an agent for the agent's principal is not denied, but is claimed to have been unintentional, it is proper to instruct the jury, on this issue, that "the principal is bound for the care, diligence, and fidelity of his agent in his business". Crockett Bros. v. Sibley, 3 Ga. App. 554, 60 S.E. 326 (1908).

Cited in Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Brady, 175 Ga. 43, 164 S.E. 674 (1932); Jordan v. Belvin, 57 Ga. 719, 196 S.E. 132 (1938); Malcom v. Webb, 211 Ga. 449, 86 S.E.2d 489 (1955); United States v. One 1955 Model Buick Coupe Auto., 145 F. Supp. 72 (S.D. Ga. 1956); Mitchell v. Gay, 111 Ga. App. 867, 143 S.E.2d 568 (1965); Miller v. Thurmond, 128 Ga. App. 228, 196 S.E.2d 366 (1973); International Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Briscoe, 143 Ga. App. 417, 239 S.E.2d 38 (1977); Garden of Eden, Inc. v. Eastern Sav. Bank, 244 Ga. 63, 257 S.E.2d 897 (1979); Fountainhead Dev. Corp. v. Dailey, 263 Ga. App. 677, 588 S.E.2d 768 (2003).

Independent contractor.

- Principle of law that a master or employer is liable for a tort committed by the master's or employer's servant or employee about the master's business or within the course of the employee's employment is not applicable in a case where the relation between the parties is that of principal or employer and independent contractor. Whitehall Chevrolet Co. v. Anderson, 53 Ga. App. 406, 186 S.E. 135 (1936).

Conductor of train is alter ego of carrier.

- Conductor of the train is the alter ego of the carrier with respect to the care of passengers on a railroad train and the duty of making contracts for passage, between points on the conductor's run, with persons who are permitted to board the train without tickets. Williamson v. Central of Ga. Ry., 127 Ga. 125, 56 S.E. 119 (1906).

Operator of tourist camp is liable for nonregistration of guests by employees.

- It was not required that the owner or operator of a tourist camp be personally in actual charge of the register; if the owner's agents, servants, or employees were in charge thereof, and fail to secure from the occupants of the cabins or rooms the registration and information required by Ga. L. 1945, p. 326, § 6, the owner or operator was responsible therefor under former Code 1933, §§ 4-309 and 4-311. Copeland v. Leathers, 206 Ga. 280, 56 S.E.2d 530 (1949).

Seller of explosives is liable for agent's negligence in instructing use.

- If a company by the company's agent gives instructions for the use of the company's explosive products, the company is liable for the company's negligence in giving such instructions, in connection with the sale of the company's products. Fleming v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 89 Ga. App. 837, 81 S.E.2d 529 (1954).

Bank officer cannot release debtors short of payment of debt.

- Despite this section, a bank officer, with or without apparent authority, cannot compromise the institution the officer represents by promising proposed debtors of the bank that the debtors will be granted a release from the debtors' obligations short of payment of the debt. Wall v. Federal Land Bank, 156 Ga. App. 368, 274 S.E.2d 753 (1980).

Special trust in bank or officers does not allow reliance on oral communications.

- Even if a party places special trust and confidence in a bank or the bank's officers, this does not create a confidential or fiduciary relationship which would entitle the party seeking to avoid an obligation to the bank by alleging reliance upon oral communications between the bank officers and that party which might otherwise vitiate the transaction. Wall v. Federal Land Bank, 156 Ga. App. 368, 274 S.E.2d 753 (1980).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agency, §§ 251, 252, 262 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 2A C.J.S., Agency, § 447 et seq.

ALR.

- Liability for misconduct or negligence of messenger not directly related to the service, 18 A.L.R. 1416.

Personal liability of servant or agent to third person for injuries caused by the performance or nonperformance of his duties to his employer, 20 A.L.R. 97; 99 A.L.R. 408; 96 A.L.R.2d 208.

Liability of bank in respect to funds of third persons misappropriated by bank officer or employee and used to cover his own overdraft or defalcation, 48 A.L.R. 464.

Liability of bailee for damage to or destruction of subject of bailment by servant acting for his own purposes or in violation of his instructions, 52 A.L.R. 711.

Waiver of fraud by principal's performance of contract with third person, or by payment of commissions to broker with knowledge of fraud, 69 A.L.R. 1082.

Necessity of alleging fact of agency in declaring upon contract made by party through agent, 89 A.L.R. 895.

Liability of infant for torts of his employee or agent, 103 A.L.R. 487.

Responsibility of bank for fraud of officer or agent inducing customer or debtor of bank to enter into transaction with such officer or agent personally or with third person, 117 A.L.R. 389.

Authority of agent who delivers commercial paper or other obligation to third person for collection, to receive payment of proceeds from the latter, so as to preclude principal's right to enforce payment of proceeds, 163 A.L.R. 1209.

Fraud or misrepresentation by insured's agent after loss as within provision avoiding policy for fraud or attempted fraud of insured, 24 A.L.R.2d 1220.

Employer's liability for negligence of employee in piloting his own airplane in employer's business, 46 A.L.R.2d 1050.

Real estate broker's power to bind principal by representations as to character, condition, location, quantity, or title of property, 58 A.L.R.2d 10.

Liability of proprietor of store, office, or similar business premises for injury from fall due to presence of litter or debris on floor, 61 A.L.R.2d 6.

Liability of proprietor of store, office, or similar business premises for injury from fall due to presence of obstacle placed or dropped on floor, 61 A.L.R.2d 110.

Liability of proprietor of store, office, or similar business premises for injury from fall due to presence of litter or debris on stairway, 61 A.L.R.2d 174.

Liability of proprietor of store, office, or similar business premises for injury from fall due to presence of obstacle placed or dropped on steps, 61 A.L.R.2d 205.

Principal's liability for false arrest or imprisonment caused by agent or servant, 92 A.L.R.2d 15; 93 A.L.R.3d 826.

Release of (or covenant not to sue) master or principal as affecting liability of servant or agent for tort, or vice versa, 92 A.L.R.2d 533.

Physician giving medical examination to insurance applicant as agent of insured or of insurer, 94 A.L.R.2d 1389.

Personal liability of auctioneer to owner or mortgagee for conversion, 96 A.L.R.2d 208.

Insurance agent's statement or conduct indicating that insurer's cancellation of policy shall not take effect as binding on insurer, 3 A.L.R.3d 1135.

Liability for negligence of doorman or similar attendant in parking patron's automobile, 41 A.L.R.3d 1055.

Liability of bank, to other than party whose financial condition is misrepresented, for erroneous credit information furnished by bank or its directors, officers, or employees, 77 A.L.R.3d 6.

Spouse's acceptance or retention of benefits of other spouse's fraudulent act as ratification of transaction, 82 A.L.R.3d 625.

Principal's liability for punitive damages because of false arrest or imprisonment, or malicious prosecution, by agent or employee, 93 A.L.R.3d 826.

Hospital's liability for negligence in failing to review or supervise treatment given by doctor, or to require consultation, 12 A.L.R.4th 57.