Legal Opinion

Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 29, 2003No. A095590PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

STEVENS, Acting P. J.

Chaiyut Harnsmut (Harnsmut) and his wife, Urai Chaloeicheep (Chaloeicheep), appeal from a judgment holding them vicariously liable for injuries suffered by a police officer at the hands of their employee. They contend their liability is precluded by the firefighter’s rule and that their employee’s actions were not within the scope of his employment for purposes of respondeat superior, or at least the matter should have been submitted to the jury. We agree the court erred in not submitting the issue of respondeat superior to the jury, and we vacate the judgment.

I.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mary M. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Walters v. SloanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Farmers Insurance Group v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. John R. v. Oakland Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Donovan v. Poway Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Hartline v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Kephart v. Genuity, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006

12 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