Bussard v. Minimed, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 January 2003 |
Docket Number | No. B158537.,B158537. |
Citation | 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675,105 Cal.App.4th 798 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Barbara BUSSARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MINIMED, INC., Defendant and Respondent. |
Law Offices of Robert M. Tessier and Robert M. Tessier, Calabasas, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Booth, Mitchel & Strange, William F. Rummler and Christopher C. Lewi for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Barbara Bussard appeals from summary judgment for respondent Minimed, Inc. After review, we hold the "going-and-coming" exception to the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to an employee while she is driving home after becoming sick at work from exposure to pesticide fumes.
On March 22, 2000, respondent Minimed hired a pest control company to spray pesticide overnight to eliminate fleas at respondent's facility. Around 7:00 a.m. the next day, Minimed clerical employee Irma Hernandez arrived for work. She noticed a funny smell similar to "Raid." By 10 o'clock, she felt ill, with a headache, nausea, and tightness in her chest. At noon, she told two supervisors she did not feel well enough to continue working and wanted to go home. One supervisor offered to send her to the company doctor, but Hernandez declined the offer, while another supervisor asked whether she felt well enough to drive home, and she said yes. (Eventually, nine workers went home early feeling ill and 22 employees sought medical care either that day or later for their exposure to the pesticide.)
Hernandez drove home shortly after noon. While in route, she rear ended appellant Barbara Bussard, who was stopped at a red light. Hernandez told the police officer who responded to the accident scene that she had felt dizzy and lightheaded before the accident.1
Appellant sued Hernandez (who is not a party to this appeal) and respondent Minimed alleging a single cause of action for negligence for her personal injuries and property damage. She claimed respondent was vicariously liable as Hernandez's employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior because Hernandez was acting within the course and scope of her employment when she was driving home ill from pesticide exposure.2
Respondent moved for summary judgment. It argued the "going-and-coming" rule meant Hernandez was not within the course and scope of her employment during her commute home. Accordingly, it should not be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
The court agreed. It noted the pesticide had not incapacitated Hernandez to the point of rendering her irrational. Thus, her exposure to it did not justify disregarding the going-and-coming rule to make respondent vicariously liable for her as she drove home sick. This appeal followed.
(Cochran v. Cochran (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 283, 287, 106 Cal. Rptr.2d 899.)
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493, italics and fn. omitted.)
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is ordinarily liable for the injuries its employees cause others in the course of their work. Respondeat superior imposes liability whether or not the employer was itself negligent, and whether or not the employer had control of the employee. The doctrine's animating principle is that a business should absorb the costs its undertakings impose on others. As one court described the doctrine, `` (Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1558-1559, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 333; see also Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 960, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188, 471 P.2d 988 [ .)
The doctrine's application requires that the employee be acting within the course of her employment, which case law defines expansively. (Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1004, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478, 906 P.2d 440.)
Despite the doctrine's wide reach, courts have not defined it so broadly as to include an employee's daily commute. (Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1035, 222 Cal.Rptr. 494; see Harris v. Trojan Fireworks Co. (1981) 120 Cal. App.3d 157, 174 Cal.Rptr. 452 (Harris) [same].)
The going-and-coming rule is not iron-clad, however, and allows for several exceptions. One exception applies when an employee endangers others with a risk arising from or related to work. In determining whether such danger arises from or is related to work, case law applies a foreseeability test. Our Supreme Court describes this type of foreseeability, which is different from the foreseeability of negligence, as employees' conduct that is neither startling nor unusual. " ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barclay v. Briscoe
...to a third person who is foreign to the employee and the employee relationship....”). 11. Petitioners cite Bussard v. Minimed, Inc., 105 Cal.App.4th 798, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675 (2003) to argue that Richardson was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision. In that c......
-
Scott v. Solano County Health and Social Services
...reh'g,(Aug. 21, 2001); Depew v. Crocodile Enterprises, Inc., 63 Cal.App.4th 480, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 673 (1998). Bussard v. Minimed, Inc., 105 Cal. App.4th 798, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675 (2003). Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut, 106 Cal.App.4th 472, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 18. Plaintiffs counsel is admonished that t......
-
Purton v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.
...the Childers court concluded that it should bear the cost of the injury. (Ibid.) Finally, the court in Bussard v. Minimed, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 798, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675 (Bussard ), held that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment for an employer on a respondeat superior ......
- Fittante v. Palm Springs Motors, Inc.
-
Tyler G. Banks, Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute: the Second Circuit?s Misstep Around General Principles of Law in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
...INTERNATIONAL LAW IN NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS: UNITED KINGDOM 22 (2006),http://www.fafo.no/liabilities/UK.pdf.Bussard v. Minimed, Inc., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 675, 679–80 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Farmers Ins. Grp. v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 906 P.2d 440, 448 (Cal. 1995)).See Khulumani v. Barcla......