by vehicle in the second degree. Barker posted his bond, and Esquibel continued to work as an independent contractor for B&S for several more months. However, sometime in December 2008, Esquibel ceased all communication with Barker and could not be located to testify at trial. 4 Boston Men’s Health Ctr., Inc. v. Howard, 311 Ga. App. 217, 221 (1) (715 SE2d 704) (2011) (emphasis and punctuation omitted). 5 Id. (punctuation omitted). 6 Farzaneh v. Merit Constr. Co., 309 Ga. App. 637, 639 (710 SE2d 839) (2011) (emphasis and punctuation omitted). 7 Id. (emphasis and punctuation omitted). 8 Hankerson v. Hammett, 285 Ga. App. 610, 613-14 (2) (647 SE2d 319) (2007) (punctuation omitted). 9 Id. at 614 (2). 10 See Betsill v. Scale Sys., Inc., 269 Ga. App. 393, 396-97 (1) (604 SE2d 265) (2004) (<HOLDING>); Hankerson, 285 Ga. App. at 614 (2) (same). 11
holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred holding that the employers party was a social event thus the employee was not acting within the scope of her employment when drinking at a party or when she was driving home afterwards holding that an employee who by virtue of his employment was authorized to access his employers computers became without authorization when he became an agent for the defendant one of his employers competitors to whom he sent emails containing his employers trade secrets and other proprietary information holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction holding as a matter of law that an offduty government agent was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home intoxicated after completing his tour of duty because on no basis would the court conclude that drinking and driving after work hours fell within the scope of the dea agents employment  