Labor/Employment
Sep. 30, 2016
Jurors imposing liability against employers: a case study
A recent decision may at first blush call into question the application of the "required vehicle exception."
Brian S. Kabateck
Founding and Managing Partner
Kabateck LLP
Consumer rights
633 W. Fifth Street Suite 3200
Los Angeles , CA 90071
Phone: 213-217-5000
Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com
Brian represents plaintiffs in personal injury, mass torts litigation, class actions, insurance bad faith, insurance litigation and commercial contingency litigation. He is a former president of Consumer Attorneys of California.
Douglas A. Rochen
Partner
Abir, Cohen, Treyzon & Salo LLP
Personal injury
16001 Ventura Blvd, Suite #200
Encino , CA 91436
Fax: (310) 407-7888
Email: drochen@actslaw.com
California Western School of Law
Douglas leads the firm's catastrophic injury practice group, which includes the areas of trucking accidents, wrongful death, product liability, sexual abuse, traumatic brain injury, paralysis, catastrophic orthopedic loss, amputation, mass tort disaster, sensory loss, civil rights, premises liability, and pharmaceutical litigation.
With the ever-expanding public policy of social responsibility and reallocation of the risks inherent in the employee's commute, courts continue to define ways to provide compensation to injured victims from third-party tortfeasors; one continuing evolution is the expansion of the "required vehicle exception" to the "going and coming" rule. A recent decision from the 1st District Court of Appeal (Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America, 2016 DJDAR 9646 (Sept. 16, 2016)) may at firs...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In