Rice

Le Elder v. Rice

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 40·21 Cal. App. 4th 1604·26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 749·94 Daily Journal DAR 761·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 502
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 1994G013013California1,771 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

Virginia Le Elder, through her guardian ad litem, Lawrence S. Eisenberg, and Le Hang Le appeal a judgment in favor of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Le Elder attempted to hold McDonnell Douglas liable under a respondeat superior theory for the alleged negligence of its employee, Dennis Lee Rice. The complaint alleged Rice was acting within the scope of his employment when his vehicle struck Le Elder, causing her severe and permanent physical and neurological injuries. The employment issue was separately tried to the court prior to trial of the other issues. The court concluded McDonnell Douglas was not liable. We agree.

I

The relevant facts are brief. Rice was returning to his home after dropping his children at school when his vehicle struck Le Elder as she attempted to cross the street on her bicycle. At the time of the accident, Rice’s job as a regional service manager required him to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. His vehicle was registered in the corporation’s Runsheimer Plan, under which employees were reimbursed for various vehicle maintenance costs and paid 6 cents per company-business mile. Employees such as Rice were required to log at least 5,000…

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.