Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut

Rule of Law:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee's tortious actions if those actions were an 'outgrowth' of the employment, 'inherent in the working environment,' or 'broadly incidental' to the employer's business, with the determination of 'scope of employment' generally being a question of fact for the jury.

Facts:

• Chaiyut Harnsmut and Urai Chaloeicheep owned Lalita Thai Restaurant in San Francisco.
• Wisan Vatanavkovarun was the head chef and Noy Sivongxay was a kitchen assistant; they did not socialize outside work but had known each other for 16 months through their employment.
• During their time at the restaurant, Wisan and Noy had argued three times, including one instance where Wisan brandished a knife and threatened Noy, and their last argument occurred a few days before the incident over Noy taking a cigarette break.
• A kitchen staff meeting was scheduled for the afternoon of August 6, 1998, to discuss the division of labor in the kitchen.
• On August 6, Wisan, without prior conversation, stabbed Noy in the back as Noy was pulling vegetables for work.
• Officer Tadao Yamaguchi and other uniformed police officers responded to a report of the stabbing at the restaurant.
• Upon entering the kitchen, Officer Yamaguchi found Wisan and Noy wrestling, and Wisan, despite orders to drop it, scooped hot oil from a deep fryer and threw it twice at Noy and Yamaguchi, who were then about a foot apart.
• Officer Yamaguchi sustained severe burns to his face, neck, torso, and arms from the hot oil.

Procedural Posture:

• Officer Tadao Yamaguchi and his wife, Tracy, sued Chaiyut Harnsmut and Urai Chaloeicheep (appellants), Wisan Vatanavkovarun, and appellants' daughter in a California trial court.
• The complaint alleged causes of action against appellants for negligent retention and supervision of Wisan, and vicarious liability for Wisan's conduct under respondeat superior, and alleged causes of action for battery, assault, and negligence solely against Wisan.
• Yamaguchi's employer, the City and County of San Francisco, filed a complaint in intervention seeking reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits.
• Appellants moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication as to the causes of action against them.
• The trial court granted summary adjudication as to the second cause of action (negligent retention and supervision) under Civil Code section 1714.9, but otherwise denied the motion, leaving only vicarious liability claims against appellants.
• Appellants sought review of this ruling by a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition to the Court of Appeal, which was summarily denied.
• Appellants' motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1995 to compel Wisan's testimony at trial was denied by the trial judge without prejudice, who indicated he would not order Wisan's appearance because he could have been deposed during discovery.
• A default judgment had been entered against Wisan, so the trial proceeded against appellants only.
• At the completion of evidence, the trial court declined appellants' proposed jury instruction on the firefighter's rule, instructing the jury instead on a claim based on the exception to the firefighter’s rule in section 1714.9 (BAJI No. 4.61), stating the exception applied because Wisan knew the officers were present.
• The trial court also refused appellants’ proposed instructions on vicarious liability and, instead, instructed the jury, based on BAJI No. 13.04, that as a matter of law, Wisan was appellants’ employee and his acts and omissions were attributable to appellants.
• The jury, by special verdict, found that appellants had engaged in negligent and willful conduct that caused Yamaguchi’s injuries and awarded damages to Yamaguchi, the City, and Tracy Yamaguchi.
• Judgment was entered accordingly.
• Appellants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial, arguing, among other things, that Wisan's assault was not committed within the scope of his employment as a matter of law, or should have been a jury issue, and that the firefighter's rule applied; both motions were denied.