State of Cal. ex rel. CHP v. Super. Ct.

DISCUSSION

Under the common law, a special employment relationship arises when a ― ‗general‘ employer . . . lends an employee to another employer and relinquishes to [the] borrowing employer all right of control over the employee‘s activities.‖ (Marsh v. Tilley Steel Co. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 486, 492 (Marsh).) ―During this period of transferred control, the special employer becomes solely liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the employee‘s job-related torts. [Citations.]‖ (Ibid.) Nevertheless, not all special employment relationships are exclusive. ―Where general and special employers share control of an employee‘s work, a ‗dual employment‘ arises, and the general employer remains concurrently and simultaneously, jointly and severally liable for the employee‘s torts. [Citations.]‖ (Id. at pp. 494-495.) Here, Alvarado contends CHP is liable as Guzman‘s special employer, while California Coach shares liability as his general employer. This argument raises novel issues. The parties cite no California case, and we have found none, in which an employee of a private contractor also qualified as a special public employee for purposes of vicarious liability.

2 The special…