Automotive and Trucking Accidents in the U.S. with Foreign Defendants: What Insurers Need to Know
Butler's Thursday Tips | Little Black Box
Straight Talks: Autonomous regulations around the world
Straight Talks: Innovations in product liability for autonomous and connected vehicles
How Auto Defects Can Cause Passenger Injury
Understanding Supplemental Spousal Liability Insurance in NY
Hailey French’s Story – When millions barely cover the bills.
What happens if more than one person is responsible for an accident?
Catastrophic Impairment: What it means and why it's important to you if you've been hurt in a car accident
A California Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on that question, finding that the employer was not vicariously liable in a recent opinion. The case involves Clanisha Villegas, who worked for...more
Analyzing the Coming and Going Rule and Its Exceptions - In Wright v. Alltech Wiring & Controls, the Court of Appeals reviewed the Contractual Duty exception to the Coming and Going Rule. The employee had duties which...more
An employer is liable for an accident on an employee’s commute to and from work only if the vehicle was required for work on the day of the employee’s accident, a California appellate court has ruled. ...more
The Case and Factors Considered - In Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 2018 WL 3017203, ____ Cal.Rptr. ____ (appeal from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County), a deputy public defender was...more
In Morales-Simental v. Genentech, Inc. (A145865, filed 9/22/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District rejected the plaintiffs’ broad interpretation of the “special errand”...more
In Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc., 2017 WL 1365089 (April 13, 2017), the Fourth Appellate District was presented with another circumstance where the “business errand” exception to the going and coming rule was at issue....more
In Gail M. Lynn, et al. v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc., et al., 2017 WL 696008, published February 24, 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in...more
As a general rule, an employee is deemed not to be "in the course and scope of employment" and is therefore not entitled to workers' compensation benefits, while commuting to and from work. This is known as the "going and...more
It is rare these days for a California appellate court to weigh in on whether an employer is vicariously liable for accidents involving an employee that occur during the employee’s commute to and from work. The law was...more
Question: Is an employer liable for the damage caused by its employee when that employee is involved in an automobile accident outside of work hours and on a personal errand? Answer: As with most things, it depends. ...more
One would think that, under the “going and coming” rule, employers could never be liable for torts committed by their employees during the employees’ commutes. Think again. If employers require employees to use their cars or...more