Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Premises Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing in Clayton County court centers on who is liable after shooting outside Marlboro Beauty Supply
Summary
Defense lawyers asked a judge to end a personal-injury case by saying the shooting happened in an employee’s car and outside the scope of business; plaintiff’s lawyer pointed to prior statements that the owner provided the employee’s gun and directed him to transport money, arguing factual conflicts for a jury.
A Clayton County State Court hearing on Nov. 12 examined whether defendants in a personal-injury suit arising from a 2021 gun discharge should be dismissed without trial. Defense counsel Matthew Dickinson told the judge the undisputed record shows the shooting occurred in an employee’s private vehicle after hours and not in furtherance of Marlboro Beauty Supply’s business, so the owner and store are not liable as a matter of law. “We ask that the court grant summary judgment to the defendants Mara/Marlboro Beauty Supply and Mohammed Muntaser,” Dickinson said during argument.
Plaintiff counsel disputed that characterization and pointed to prior testimony and a restitution hearing in which the employee said the owner supplied the firearm and that the employee carried it as part of workplace duties. Attorney Weeks argued those earlier statements create a credibility dispute for a jury: those prior admissions, he said, support a theory that the employee was acting in the scope of his work when the incident occurred.
The parties debated two legal paths the case could follow: vicarious liability (whether an employee’s tort can be imputed to an employer) and premises liability (whether the business had superior knowledge of a dangerous condition). Defense counsel stressed Georgia law requires a showing that an employee was acting to further the employer’s business and emphasized that the incident took place in a private vehicle in the parking lot. Plaintiff counsel stressed testimony given under oath in a prior proceeding that could be read to show the owner provided the firearm and directed the employee’s activities.
Counsel on both sides cited case law and statutory rules in support of their positions. Defense counsel argued plaintiffs produced no expert testimony on what security measures would be necessary and relied on OCGA standards limiting owner liability in certain firearm-related matters. Plaintiff counsel pointed to testimony that the owner supplied the firearm and said a jury could draw adverse inferences from inconsistent statements by the employee.
The judge heard argument but did not announce a ruling on summary judgment in court. She told counsel she would take the matter under advisement and proceed to put the case in order for further briefing or scheduling as required.
