CHOREY, TAYLOR & FEIL, P.C. v. CLARK Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer was not vicariously liable for an employee’s car accident because the employee was on an errand for a separate, competing business. The court held this act fell outside the scope of her employment as a matter of law, even though a coworker requested the errand.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the “scope of employment” test for respondeat superior. An employee’s act that benefits a competing entity, even if requested by a coworker, is not in furtherance of the employer’s business and falls outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Wanda Chatham, an employee of the law firm Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. (Chorey Taylor), caused a car accident injuring Dannice Clark. At the time of the collision, Chatham was driving her personal vehicle on an errand to deliver a check. The check was for telephone service for a new, separate law firm, Vincent Berg, which was being established by attorneys leaving Chorey Taylor. Chatham had already accepted an offer to begin working for Vincent Berg the following month. The errand was requested by a fellow employee at Chorey Taylor. Clark sued Chorey Taylor under the doctrine of respondeat superior, alleging that Chatham was acting within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred. The trial court granted summary judgment to Chorey Taylor, finding no basis for vicarious liability. The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that a jury could infer the errand was connected to Chatham’s employment. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s negligence when the employee’s actions at the time of the tort were undertaken to benefit a separate and competing business entity?
No. The employer is not vicariously liable because the employee was not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in r
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s negligence when the employee’s actions at the time of the tort were undertaken to benefit a separate and competing business entity?
Conclusion
This case establishes a firm limit on the scope of employment for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Legal Rule
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserun
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee’s tort unless