Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHLI, J.
We hold that a security guard company is not liable for the arson committed by one of its employees who was acting outside the course and scope of his employment. In so holding we determine that Business and Professions Code section 7582.15 1 does not abolish the common law doctrine of respondeat superior in requiring that an employee be acting in the scope of employment in order to hold an employer liable for the employee’s acts.
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in denying summary adjudication of a cause of action which seeks to hold a security guard company…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Mary M. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Ford Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Simmons, Inc., a Corporation v. Pinkerton's, Inc., a Corporation and National Surety Corporation, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Antonio v. SECURITY SERVICES OF AMERICA, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2010
- Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2014
- Antonio v. SSA Security, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Duste v. Chevron Products Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.