Jorge

Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 771·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 586·3 Cal. App. 5th 382
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 2016A143545California10,241 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richman, J.

Respondent Leopoldo Jorge, Jr. (Jorge), sued Almir Da Fonseca (Da Fonseca) and appellant Culinary Institute of America (Culinary Institute or Institute) for injuries sustained when he was struck by a car driven by Da Fonseca, a chef instructor employed by the Culinary Institute. Despite that Da Fonseca had finished his shift at the Culinary Institute and was driving home in his own car at the time of the accident, a jury found the Institute liable for Jorge’s injuries on a theory of respondeat superior. The Culinary Institute moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground there was no evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Da Fonseca was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. More specifically, it argued that there was no evidence supporting application of the “required vehicle” exception to the “going and coming” rule and so it could not be vicariously liable for Da Fonseca’s negligent conduct while he was commuting home from work. The trial court denied the motion.

The Culinary Institute appeals, again arguing that it cannot be liable to Jorge for injuries caused by Da Fonseca’s negligence because there was no evidence…

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.