on his way to work. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Esquibel was not acting within the scope of his employment with B&S at the time of the accident. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment in favor of B&S. Judgment affirmed. Mikell, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur. 1 See Horton v. Hendrix, 291 Ga. App. 416, 416 (662 SE2d 227) (2008). 2 Because his own vehicle was having mechanical problems, Esquibel was driving a vehicle that Barker personally owned but had loaned to Esquibel for his unlimited use. 3 Following the accident, Esquibel was charged with, inter alia, hom hompson v. Princell, 304 Ga. App. 256, 261 (b) (696 SE2d 91) (2010) (punctuation 80 (4) (646 SE2d 197) (2007) (punctuation omitted). 18 Id. 19 See id. (<HOLDING>); Compton v. State, 179 Ga. 560, 567 (6) (176
holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted holding that trial court did not err in refusing to parse witnesss testimony or to have it replayed in its entirety holding that trial court did not err in refusing instruction that would have directed jurors not to consider specific acts of negligence in determining medical centers liability holding that where no description of witnesss evidence offered and no suggestion made as to how testimony would affect defendants case trial court did not err in refusing to issue certificate ordering witnesss attendance holding that trial court did not err