Caldwell

Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc.

Good Law
176 Cal. App. 3d 1028·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2502·222 Cal. Rptr. 494
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 1986F004400California5,544 words

Opinion

Opinion

Best, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, A.R.B., Inc. (A.R.B.) We must determine whether exceptions to the “going-and-coming” rule require reversal.

The Case

Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against Bruce Wayne Brandon, charging him with negligently operating his vehicle and causing it to collide with plaintiff’s vehicle. The complaint further alleged that Brandon was acting in the scope of his employment. At the time of the accident, Brandon was employed by defendant A.R.B., and A.R.B. was named later as a defendant in the suit. A.R.B. filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Brandon was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The motion was granted, and plaintiff appeals.

The Facts

On January 20, 1982, plaintiff was driving his van on Highway 58 in Kern County when he was involved in a car accident. Plaintiff’s van and a vehicle driven by Brandon collided head-on. Brandon was killed, and plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident.

Brandon was an apprentice pipefitter and had been hired by A.R.B. to work at the Shell Oil dehydration plant project, which was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.