Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Vicarious Liability

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Yalung v. State of California (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 71

Persons paid under the In-Home Supportive Services program (Welf. & Inst. Code 12300 et seq.) to care for disabled and elderly California residents are not employees of the State of California which, therefore, is not vicariously liable for their torts, such as negligent driving in this case. Read More

Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. Direct Action Everywhere, No. A163315, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 612 (Ct. App. July 13, 2022)

Four individuals protested the Golden Gate racetrack's allegedly improper treatment of race horses by sneaking onto the track, linking their arms by PVC pipes and lying across the track in a manner that prevented the racetrack from holding races.  The racetrack owner sued the four individuals for trespass and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, naming Direct Action as an… Read More

Magallanes de Valle v. Doctors Med. Ctr. of Modesto, No. F082099, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 590 (Ct. App. June 24, 2022)

A hospital may be held vicariously liable for a doctor's negligent treatment of a patient at the hospital if the doctor is a hospital employee or the hospital's ostensible agent.   Mejia v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1448; Whitlow v. Rideout Memorial Hospital (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 631.  Here, the trial court correctly granted the hospital summary judgment… Read More

Bacoka v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., No. B306900, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 913 (Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2021)

Best Buy is not liable for an independent contractor's negligent installation of a Best Buy washer on the plaintiff's premises which resulted in extensive water damage.  Best Buy hired firm 1 to transport Best Buy products to purchasers' properties.  Firm 1 contracted with local transportation companies to provide the actual transportation and installation services.  The local company that transported and… Read More

Jones v. Sorenson

by Jan T. Chilton |

A homeowner who hired an unlicensed gardener to trim tall trees is vicariously liable to gardener’s employee who was injured in a fall due to gardener’s negligence. Read More

Cal Sierra Development, Inc. v. George Reed, Inc.

A primary actor or a party bearing derivative or vicarious liability for the primary actor's torts are in privity for res judicata purposes, and so, no matter which one the plaintiff sues first, a judgment against the plaintiff is binding in favor of both.   Read More

CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court

Proof of an employer's own wrongdoing is needed to impose punitive damages on the employer for an employee’s torts, even if as a separate matter it is vicariously liable for those torts.  Read More

Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc.

Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether construction employer’s yard amounted to a worksite, such that the employer could claim exemption based on the going and coming rule from liability for injuries caused by employee on his way from home to the yard.  Read More

Gopal v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

Kaiser's Health Plan, a Know-Keane health care service plan, is not a single enterprise (or alter ego of) Kaiser Foundation Hospitals or Southern California Permanente Medical Group and so is not liable for their alleged torts.  Read More