In Georgia, an employer is not responsible for the torts of its independent contractor. Whitaker Farms v. Fitzgerald Fruit Farms, 347 Ga. App. 381, 385 (1), 819 S.E.2d 666 (2018); Lopez v. El Palmar Taxi, 297 Ga. App. 121, 123 (2), 676 S.E.2d 460 (2009). In fact, the General Assembly of Georgia has codified this maxim of law:
“An employer generally is not responsible for torts committed by his employee when the employee exercises an independent business and in it is not subject to the immediate direction and control of the employer.”
O.C.G.A. § 51-2-4.
When a contract of employment clearly denominates the other party as an independent contractor, that relationship is presumed to be true unless the evidence shows that the employer assumed “the right to control the time, manner and method of executing the work.” Lopez, 297 Ga. App. at 123 (2), 676 S.E.2d 460. Therefore, when deciding whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee, you must look to the language of the contract and the manner and method of the duties and work.
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently discussed when ratification applies as an exception to the rule thereby causing employer responsibility for torts of independent contractors. In an action for negligence and other tort claims, including negligent credentialing, plaintiff brought claims individually and as the administrator of the estate of his deceased wife against an entity that provided anesthesiologists and CRNAs to a medical provider pursuant to a Professional Services Agreement. Miller v. Polk et al., A22A0325, 2022 WL 1282662 at *1-*2 (April 29, 2022). The plaintiff argued that a CRNA should be treated as an employee because they ratified her wrongful acts by continuing to employ her and allowing her to provide medical treatment after learning that she had violated her probation and engaged in "demonstrable negligence" in the care of another patient prior. Id. at *4.
The Court of Appeals offered insight into the theory of ratification of an independent contractor's wrongful conduct by stating the principal must ratify the tort of the agent after the commission of the tort. Id. Only then is the liability of the principal the same as if he had commanded the wrong, provided the ratification is had with full knowledge on the part of the principal of the manner in which the tort was committed. Medley v. Boomershine Pontiac-GMC Truck, 214 Ga. App. 795, 797 (4), 449 S.E.2d 128 (1994). The plaintiff only alleged facts about acts that occurred prior to the tort and therefore ratification did not occur. Further, the Court of Appeals stated that there was no violation of a duty imposed by an express contract upon the employer because the plaintiff was not in the Professional Services Agreement. Id.