Yamaguchi

Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 472·130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 706·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 247·2003 Daily Journal DAR 1960·19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1096
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2003A095590California5,410 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stevens, 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. Facts and Procedural History

Appellants Harnsmut and Chaloeicheep own Lalita Thai Restaurant in San Francisco. As of August 1998, Wisan Vatanavkovarun (Wisan) had been head chef at the restaurant for 16 months. A kitchen assistant, Noy Sivongxay (Noy), had worked at the restaurant approximately four months before Wisan, initially as a dishwasher. Wisan and Noy did not know each other before working at the Lalita Thai Restaurant, did not socialize together, and had only one contact outside the restaurant, when Noy gave Wisan a ride home.

During their 16 months at the restaurant, Wisan and Noy had argued three…

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.