This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Auto v. Auto
Respondeat Superior

Estate of Brian Griffin Lynn, Gail M. Lynn, Randy Lynn v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Published: May 9, 2015 | Result Date: Mar. 18, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIVBS1200525 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David L. Weisberg
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)

John Carpenter

John P. Kristensen
(Carpenter & Zuckerman)

Paul S. Zuckerman
(Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley)


Defendant

Aji N. Abiedu

Frederick J. Ufkes
(Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP)


Facts

On Aug. 11, 2011, Abdul Formoli was involved in a head-on collision with Brian and Gail Lynn. Both Formoli and Brian Lynn succumbed to their injuries from the accident. The accident occurred three hours after Formoli had completed a temporary assignment, for Tatitlek Support Services Inc.

Formoli had been hired by Tatitlek to participate as a role player in an exercise conducted at Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Base from Aug. 7-11, 2011. Tatitlek hired role players as temporary employees.

The Estate of Brian Lynn, decedent's wife Gail Lynn and their son, Randy Lynn sued Tatitlek for negligence under a theory of respondeat superior. Tatitlek moved for summary judgment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Citing Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962, plaintiffs alleged that the going and coming rule did not apply because Tatitlek benefited from locating its enterprise at a remote location from the local labor market and was therefore liable for trips incidental to its enterprise.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that the accident occurred three hours after Formoli departed from Tatitlek's facility on the Marine Corps Base and was over 100 miles away from Tatitlek's facility on the Base. Tatitlek did not compensate any of its role players for travel time to and from its facility, but instead provided buses from certain locations. Formoli chose to drive himself to Tatitlek's facility.

Defendants contended that at the time the accident occurred, Formoli was not an employee of Tatitlek and was not engaged in any activity for benefit of Tatitlek or incidental to his employment with Tatitlek. Under these facts the going and coming rule applied to bar respondeat superior liability.

Result

Summary judgment for the defense. The court granted Tatitlek's Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that it had met its prima facie burden of showing that Formoli was not acting within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The court found that no master-servant relationship existed and that Formoli was not acting in the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 15, 2012.


#119804

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390