Question

Marc Brandon worked for Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (Warner), as vice president of antipiracy Internet operations. Brandon drove his car from his home in southern California to the Burbank Airport, where he parked his car in an airport parking lot. Brandon then flew to a three day conference he attended in Sunnyvale, California, that was sponsored by one of Warner’s antipiracy vendors. Warner approved Brandon’s trip and paid for his airfare, hotel, and airport parking. When Brandon left the conference, he flew back to the Burbank Airport, where he retrieved his car from the parking lot. On his way home from the airport, his route took him past his Warner office location. He continued on toward his house, using his normal route from the office to his home. Brandon did not stop at his Warner office. Approximately two or three miles past the office, he was involved in an automobile collision with Jared Southard. One or both cars struck and injured pedestrians Chuenchomporn Jeewarat, Tipphawan Tantisriyanurak, and Kanhathai Vutthicharoen. Vutthicharoen died as a result of her injuries. Jeewarat, Tantisriyanurak, and Vutthicharoen’s heirs sued Brandon, Southard, and Warner to recover damages for negligence and respondeat superior. Warner filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that because Brandon was taking his normal route home, Warner was protected from liability by the coming and going rule. Does the coming and going rule protect Warner from liability? Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 427, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 837, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 1478 (Court of Appeal of California, 2009)


$1.99
Sales0
Views63
Comments0
  • CreatedAugust 12, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000