Phillips v. Tlc Plumbing, Inc.
Decision Date | 03 April 2009 |
Docket Number | No. D053072.,D053072. |
Citation | 172 Cal.App.4th 1133,91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | TRISHA PHILLIPS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TLC PLUMBING, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Robert S. Kostrenich for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Maxie, Rheinheimer, Stephens and Vrevich, Sean D. Stephens and Elizabeth I. Drake for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff Trisha Phillips (Plaintiff) appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants TLC Plumbing, Inc. (TLC), and Thad L. Condon (together Defendants).1 Plaintiff filed the instant action after James Joseph Cain, one of TLC's former employees, shot and killed Judith Phillips (Judith), Plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff's action alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring and retention of Cain. On appeal, she contends the trial court erred by granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment because there are triable issues of material fact on her cause of action for negligent hiring and retention.
In 1999 TLC employed Cain as a plumbing service repairman. At the time Cain was hired, Condon, as owner of TLC, learned Cain was on parole and apparently had been convicted of a domestic violence and/or arson offense involving his then wife.
On April 2, 2003, TLC dispatched Cain on a service call to Judith's residence. On April 24, TLC dispatched Cain on another service call to her residence. On or about May 21, TLC terminated Cain's employment for misuse of a company vehicle, drug and alcohol use, and apparently threatening a coworker.
Cain and Judith apparently began a social relationship in April 2003 after his first service call. Their relationship seemingly evolved over time into a romantic one. On May 19, 2005, after Judith had ended their relationship and applied for a restraining order against Cain, he shot her. She died the following day and Cain was convicted of her murder.
In May 2006, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint alleging causes of action against Defendants, including a cause of action for negligent hiring and retention of Cain.2 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting there were no triable issues of material fact. They argued Cain was not their employee at the time he killed Judith and their alleged negligence was not a legal cause of her harm. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing Defendants owed her a duty of care and there were triable issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. In their reply to the opposition, Defendants argued they did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care.
On January 25, 2008, following arguments of counsel, the trial court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court stated: On March 19, the court entered judgment for Defendants. Plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal.
(Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089]; see Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 767 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 23 P.3d 1143].) (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493] (Aguilar).)
Aguilar clarified the standards that apply to summary judgment motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.3 (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 843-857.) Generally, if all the papers submitted by the parties show there is no triable issue of material fact and the "`moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,'" the court must grant the motion for summary judgment. (Aguilar, at p. 843, quoting § 437c, subd. (c).) Section 437c, subdivision (p)(2), states: Aguilar stated: (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855, italics added.)
(Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1201-1202 .)
(1) (Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339 .) (Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269, 278 .) Nevertheless, causation may be a question of law if on undisputed facts there can be no reasonable difference of opinion on causal nexus. (Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1687 .)
(2) (Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1564-1565 .) "Liability for negligent hiring . . . is based upon the reasoning that if an enterprise hires individuals with characteristics which might pose a danger to customers or other employees, the enterprise should bear the loss caused by the wrongdoing of its incompetent or unfit employees." (Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1339.) Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it "knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes." (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054 .) (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 836 .) (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 815 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 376].) Comment d to section 213 of the Restatement Second of Agency explains at pages 459 to 460: (3) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Employees Behaving Badly
...of a former employee, with respect to unknown customers and clients of unknown future employers.”); Philips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc., 172 Cal. App. 4th 1133, 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (“Because the employer-employee relationship ends on termination of an employee’s employ......