Legal Opinion

Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 3, 2009No. B212323PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KRIEGLER, J.

An employee returning home after a three-day business conference was driving his regular commute route when he was involved in a car accident that injured several pedestrians. Plaintiffs sought to impose liability against the employer based on principles of respondeat superior. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment based on the “going and coming rule,” which provides that an employer is not subject to vicarious liability for accidents occurring during an employee’s commute to or from the workplace. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Farmers Insurance Group v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Boynton v. McKalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Hernandez v. City of NapaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2011
  2. Jorge v. Culinary Institute of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. Sharrock v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  5. Morales-Simental v. Genentech, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API