There’s no question that if an employee is acting at the bequest of their employer while on the clock, then their employer can be held responsible for the actions of that employee. But what about when the employee is no longer on the clock? What are the limits of the employer’s responsibility? A case in Orange County is bringing some interesting questions up about those limits.
The facts of the case
The incident took place in March of 2014 when Jon Bullard, the defendant, was going home after finishing work as a restraint manager. He was driving on Pacific Coast Highway and got to the intersection of Thalia Drive where he pulled into the intersection to make a left turn. He was waiting for traffic to clear when the light turned yellow, then red, and so he finished his turn. In doing so, he hit several pedestrians who were crossing the street. He pulled his car over and called 9-1-1. Both pedestrians were injured and one was taken to the hospital via ambulance.
The plaintiff’s argument
The plaintiff said that Bullard was within the scope of his employment and that one of the plaintiffs actually suffered a traumatic head injury. They said that each of the defendants should be responsible for both economic and non-economic losses.
The defendant’s side of the story
Bullard did admit to the liability. The jury, after the initial portion of the trail, found that he was acting within the scope of his employment. During the second portion of the trail, the defendant then said that the plaintiff who claimed to have a traumatic brain injury actually had a mental health disorder and was abusing stimulants.
The outcome of the cost
The jury deliberated for over two weeks before finally deciding in favor of the plaintiff. They issued a verdict of $1,013,443.20. That included past economic damages to the plaintiff for $293,443,20, $20,000 for future economic loses, $475,000 for his past non-economic damages, and another $225,000 for his future non-economic losses.
The idea of respondent superior
You may wonder how the guilty party could be the employer of the person who was directly responsible. This is due to the idea of respondent superior. It means that if a person is working within the scope of their job, that the employer is liable. This doesn’t usually involve a person commuting to and from work, but due to California’s vehicle use exception, he was acting within the course of his employment because his employer required him to drive to and from work to ensure the car was available for the business.
This was a complicated case but in the end, we believe the jury got it right. If you’ve been injured as the result of someone else acting recklessly or negligently, then you should contact Law Offices of Fernando D. Vargas at 909-982-0707 sooner rather than later. We’ll start you off with a free legal consultation so you know all your options.
