Stouffer

Miller v. Stouffer

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1060·9 Cal. App. 4th 70·92 Daily Journal DAR 12140·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7546
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1992B055890California5,033 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Defendant and appellant Cecilia P. Stouffer (Stouffer) appeals a judgment and an order denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) following a jury verdict in a personal injury case in favor of plaintiff and respondent Esther Miller (Miller). (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subds. (a), (d).)

The issues presented include (1) whether Stouffer’s housekeeper, Maria Barrientos (Barrientos), was acting within the scope of her employment in driving Stouffer’s automobile so as to make Stouffer liable for Miller’s injuries under the doctrine of respondeat superior; and (2) whether Proposition 51, which eliminated joint and several liability for noneconomic damages, allows Stouffer to avoid liability for Miller’s noneconomic damages.

We uphold the jury’s determination Stouffer is vicariously liable because we cannot say as a matter of law Barrientos was not serving her employer at the time of the accident.

Further, because the basis of Stouffer’s liability is the doctrine of respondeat superior, which imputes the employee’s negligence to the employer, Stouffer’s reliance on Proposition 51 is misplaced. Proposition 51 modified the doctrine of joint and several…

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.