Court Opinion

ID: 9587805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:26:26.567597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:31.607824
License: Public Domain

Benham, Judge,
dissenting.
I am compelled by the judicial policy of stare decisis to concur in the conclusion reached in Judge Carley’s dissent that summary judgment on the issue of negligent hiring was improperly denied appellants.
This court has previously decided that the employee’s tortious conduct must have some connection with the employer’s business before the employer will be held liable for negligent hiring of the employee. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Stegall, 184 Ga. App. 27 (360 SE2d 619) (1987). There is no evidence in the case at bar that the employee’s alleged tortious acts had any relationship to her duties as appellant’s employee. Implicit in the majority opinion is the idea that an employer should be responsible for negligently hiring an employee who is placed by the employer in a position in which there exists a potential for the infliction of harm on others. That theory was expressly rejected by a majority of this court in Lear Siegler v. Stegall. See id. (Benham dissent). Stare decisis dictates the conclusion of law which must be reached on this set of facts. See Norris v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 254 Ga. 684, 686 (333 SE2d 835) (1985). Since this court has not seen fit to overrule its holding in Lear Siegler, and the General Assembly has taken no action, we are bound by the judicial policy “tending to consistency and uniformity of decision. . . .” Mitchell v. State, 239 Ga. 3, 6 (235 SE2d 509) (1977).