Prodigies Child Care Management, LLC v. Cotton
Georgia Supreme Court
893 S.E.2d 640 (2023)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Bianca Bouie (defendant) worked as a daycare teacher for Prodigies Child Care Management, LLC, also known as University Childcare Center (University Childcare) (defendant). Bouie knew that, under state law, the daycare was required to maintain strict teacher-child ratios. Bouie had an unpaid one-hour lunch break. Typically, if Bouie expected to return late, she would notify the daycare so staff could maintain proper ratios. One day, Bouie told University Childcare that she might return from lunch a few minutes late due to an activity. On her return drive, Bouie realized she was already 20 minutes late and attempted to call University Childcare to update her arrival time. Bouie took her eyes off the road to scroll through her phone contacts for the number to call. Bouie negligently drifted into oncoming traffic and was hit by Andrea Cotton (plaintiff), who was driving in the opposite direction. Cotton sued Bouie in Georgia state court for negligence. Cotton later added a vicarious-liability claim against University Childcare, alleging that it was legally responsible for Bouie’s negligent driving under a theory of respondeat superior. Cotton argued that Bouie was furthering the daycare’s business and acting within the scope of her employment when she attempted to call to help the daycare maintain the required ratios. University Childcare moved for summary judgment, claiming that it was not vicariously liable because Bouie had been on her lunch break, not working. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the vicarious-liability claim against the daycare. The court of appeals reversed, applying a special-circumstances test and finding that a jury should evaluate the vicarious-liability claim. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, J.)
Concurrence (Peterson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 921,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.





