respondeat superior doctrine in California

2026Doctrine of Respondeat Superior “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 208 (Mary M.).) “The doctrine of respondeat superior applies to public and private employers alike.” (Id. at p. 209; see also Gov.

2021The doctrine of respondeat superior “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 208 (Mary M.).) “[A]n employee’s tortious act may be within the scope of employment even if it contravenes an express company rule and confers no benefit to the employer.” (Farmers Ins.

2023No, her conduct was “‘unusual [and] startling.’” (Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 302 [hospital not vicariously liable under respondeat superior for employee’s sexual battery of patient].) Additionally, the three policy justifications for the respondeat superior doctrine do not support holding Kaiser vicariously liable.

2022To support their derivative claims against Colonial for 20 negligence, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, they argue Holaday was acting within the scope of her employment with Colonial. 13 However, Dominguez’s theory of Colonial’s respondeat superior liability fails to satisfy the threshold criterion that Holaday was acting within the scope of employment. 14 Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, “ ‘an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.’ ” (Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 6

2021(See Mary M., supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 208–209; Perez, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 967–968; Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 ; see also Johnston v. Long (1947) 30 Cal.2d 54, 64 [“The principal justification for the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . is the fact that the employer may spread the risk through insurance and carry the cost thereof as part of his costs of doing business”].) Presbyterian asserts that “[t]he common law goal of spreading the burden of loss should not apply in this context because the agencies are not victims needing compensation for injury.” By enacti

2021(See Mary M., supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 208–209; Perez, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 967–968; Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 ; see also Johnston v. Long (1947) 30 Cal.2d 54, 64 [“The principal justification for the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . is the fact that the employer may spread the risk through insurance and carry the cost thereof as part of his costs of doing business”].) Presbyterian asserts that “[t]he common law goal of spreading the burden of loss should not apply in this context because the agencies are not victims needing compensation for injury.” By enacti

2022Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d. 956, 959 (Hinman).) But “ ‘the modern justification’ ” for the doctrine, accepted in California for over 100 years as of this writing, “is a rule of policy, a deliberate allocation of a risk. [¶] The losses caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer’s enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise itself, as a required cost of doing business.” (Id. at pp. 959-960.) This modern justification for the respondeat superior doctrine has been called the “risks-of-the-enterprise principle.” (Moreno v. Visser Ranch, I

2021(See Mary M., supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 208–209; Perez, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 967–968; Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 ; see also Johnston v. Long (1947) 30 Cal.2d 54, 64 [“The principal justification for the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . is the fact that the employer may spread the risk through insurance and carry the cost thereof as part of his costs of doing business”].) Presbyterian asserts that “[t]he common law goal of spreading the burden of loss should not apply in this context because the agencies are not victims needing compensation for injury.” By enacti

2026Group v. County of Santa Clara 14 (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1004 (Farmers).) Mary M. articulated “three reasons for applying the doctrine of respondeat superior: (1) to prevent recurrence of the tortious conduct; (2) to give greater assurance of compensation for the victim; and (3) to ensure that the victim’s losses will be equitably borne by those who benefit from the enterprise that gave rise to the injury.” (Id. at p. 209.) “In California, the scope of employment has been interpreted broadly under the respondeat superior doctrine.” (Farmers, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1004 .) This has led Califor

2026Group v. County of Santa Clara 14 (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1004 (Farmers).) Mary M. articulated “three reasons for applying the doctrine of respondeat superior: (1) to prevent recurrence of the tortious conduct; (2) to give greater assurance of compensation for the victim; and (3) to ensure that the victim’s losses will be equitably borne by those who benefit from the enterprise that gave rise to the injury.” (Id. at p. 209.) “In California, the scope of employment has been interpreted broadly under the respondeat superior doctrine.” (Farmers, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 1004 .) This has led Califor

2016(Hartline v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 458, 468 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 713 ].) Despite this distinction, in developing the respondeat superior doctrine, “courts have occasionally looked toward workers’ compensation cases for guidance. [Citations.]” (Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1562 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 333 ]; see Ducey, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 722 [California courts often cite tort and workers’ compensation cases interchangeably in going and coming cases].) 8 An earlier case, Harris v. Oro-Dam Constructors (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 911 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 544 ], had

2006(Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 721 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 602 P.2d 755 ].) Scope of employment in the application of the respondeat superior doctrine has been given a broad construction.

2021Rather, unlike the circumstances in Lewis, the first amended complaint named the Tribe as a defendant and sought to hold the Tribe vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees Quaempts and Tovey, whose alleged acts or omissions in the course of recruiting, hiring and supervising Lopez, another tribal employee, formed the grounds for Lopez’s causes of action.1 (See generally Miller v. Stouffer (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 70, 84 [explaining that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employee’s negligence is imputed to her employer; thus, the employer stands in the employee’s shoes and t

2007(Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 728 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 ] [Proposition 51 does not apply where liability imposed vicariously by virtue of defendants’ status as lessors under nondelegable duty doctrine]; Rashtian v. BRAC-BH, Inc. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1847, 1853-1854 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 411 ] [Proposition 51 does not apply where liability imposed on defendant vicariously by permissive user statutes as matter of public policy]; Miller v. Stouffer (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 70, 84 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 ] [Proposition 51 does not apply where liability imposed on defendant vicari

2022Code, § 815.2, where the plaintiff can prove that supervisory or administrative personnel were negligent, in that they knew, or should have known, of the violating employee’s propensities and nevertheless hired, retained and/or inadequately supervised that employee.17 C.A. 17 It is clear that a school district may not be held vicariously liable for an employee’s criminal acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior; rather, a district may be liable only “if its own direct negligence is established.” (John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438, 441 .) Thus, in cases involvin

2016In particular, the acts had been undertaken solely for the employees’ personal gratification and had no purpose connected to the employment.” (Id. at pp. 1006-1007; see Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 394 [citing cases holding that “sexual misconduct falls outside the course and scope of employment and should not be imputed to the employer” “under the doctrine of respondeat superior”].) Plaintiff seeks to avoid this conclusion by attempting to distinguish John R., supra, 48 Cal.3d 438 , the seminal case discussing respondeat superior liability for the sexual mi

2021(See Mary M., supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 208–209; Perez, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 967–968; Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 ; see also Johnston v. Long (1947) 30 Cal.2d 54, 64 [“The principal justification for the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . is the fact that the employer may spread the risk through insurance and carry the cost thereof as part of his costs of doing business”].) Presbyterian asserts that “[t]he common law goal of spreading the burden of loss should not apply in this context because the agencies are not victims needing compensation for injury.” By enacti

2017(Johnston v. Long (1947) 30 Cal.2d 54, 64 .) The scope of employment has been interpreted broadly under the respondeat superior doctrine in California.

2022To support their derivative claims against Colonial for 20 negligence, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, they argue Holaday was acting within the scope of her employment with Colonial. 13 However, Dominguez’s theory of Colonial’s respondeat superior liability fails to satisfy the threshold criterion that Holaday was acting within the scope of employment. 14 Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, “ ‘an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.’ ” (Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 6

2019Under the respondeat superior doctrine, “‘an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.’” (Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 491 ; accord, Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296 .) “Under certain circumstances, the employer may be subject to this form of vicarious liability even for an employee’s willful, malicious, and criminal conduct.” (Patterson, at p. 491; accord, Lisa M., at pp. 296-297.) “To be within the scope of employment, the incident giving rise to the injury mu

2017Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608 , 618-619, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143 .) Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the respondeat superior doctrine. ( Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 .) Under the going and coming rule, for example, an employee commuting to or from work is typically outside the scope of employment, and the employer is not liable for the employee's torts. ( Id . at p. 961, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 , citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 448-449.) "The 'going and coming' rule is sometimes ascribed to the theory that the employment rela

2017Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608 , 618-619, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143 .) Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the respondeat superior doctrine. ( Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 .) Under the going and coming rule, for example, an employee commuting to or from work is typically outside the scope of employment, and the employer is not liable for the employee's torts. ( Id . at p. 961, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 , citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 448-449.) "The 'going and coming' rule is sometimes ascribed to the theory that the employment rela

2023A. Law Governing Pleadings, Negligence, and Vicarious Liability Before turning to the substance of the demurrer, we address general principles applicable to this appeal. “ ‘The elements of a cause of action for negligence are (1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate [or legal] cause between the breach and (4) the plaintiff’s injury. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 (Phillips).) 7 H-Mart’s and GSI’s demurrer was not accompanied by a motion to strike. 9 “ ‘Under the doctrine of respondeat superi

2019Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1006 [“except where sexual misconduct by on- duty police officers against members of the public is involved . . . , the employer is not vicariously liable to the third party for such misconduct”].) In addition, “an employer may be liable to a third party for negligently hiring or retaining an unfit employee.” (J.W. v. Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1163 ; accord, Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 .) “Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew o

2022(Bailey v. Filco, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1559 .) “If an employee’s tort is personal in nature, mere presence at the place of employment and attendance to occupational duties prior or subsequent to the offense will not give rise to a cause of action against the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” (Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 133, 140 .) “ ‘[E]mployees do not act within the scope of employment when they abuse job-created authority over others 8 for purely personal reasons.’ ” (M.P. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121, 132

2016(Hartline v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 458, 468 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 713 ].) Despite this distinction, in developing the respondeat superior doctrine, “courts have occasionally looked toward workers’ compensation cases for guidance. [Citations.]” (Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1562 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 333 ]; see Ducey, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 722 [California courts often cite tort and workers’ compensation cases interchangeably in going and coming cases].) 8 An earlier case, Harris v. Oro-Dam Constructors (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 911 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 544 ], had

2017Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608 , 618-619, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143 .) Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the respondeat superior doctrine. ( Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 .) Under the going and coming rule, for example, an employee commuting to or from work is typically outside the scope of employment, and the employer is not liable for the employee's torts. ( Id . at p. 961, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 , citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 448-449.) "The 'going and coming' rule is sometimes ascribed to the theory that the employment rela

2017Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608 , 618-619, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143 .) Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the respondeat superior doctrine. ( Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 .) Under the going and coming rule, for example, an employee commuting to or from work is typically outside the scope of employment, and the employer is not liable for the employee's torts. ( Id . at p. 961, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 , citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 448-449.) "The 'going and coming' rule is sometimes ascribed to the theory that the employment rela

1996(Wickham v. North American Rockwell Corp. (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 467, 472 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 563 ]; Church v. Arko (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 291, 299-300 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 92 ].) The California Supreme Court has recognized that workers’ compensation cases do not dictate the outcome under a respondeat superior analysis.

1996(Wickham v. North American Rockwell Corp. (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 467, 472 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 563 ]; Church v. Arko (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 291, 299-300 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 92 ].) The California Supreme Court has recognized that workers’ compensation cases do not dictate the outcome under a respondeat superior analysis.

2023The employer’s liability extends to risks inherent in or incidental to the employer’s enterprise. [Citation.]” (Morales-Simental v. Genentech, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 445, 452 (Morales).) An exception to the respondeat superior doctrine is the “going-and-coming rule.” “Generally, an employee is outside the scope of his employment while engaged in his ordinary commute to and from his place of work.” (Felix v. Asai (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 926, 931 (Felix).) The going-and-coming rule is “based on the theory that the employment relationship is suspended from the time the employee leaves his job u

2013Code, § 3600), is not identical with the test of 'scope of employment' under the respondeat superior doctrine [citation], one of the principal considerations under compensation law is the benefit to the employer [citations]; both fields of law are concerned with the allocation of the cost of industrial injury; and the two tests are closely related [citation]"]; Huntsinger, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 808 ["Thus, while it may constitute pouring new wine into an old bottle, the 'going and coming' rule and its exceptions in the tort cases are concerned with the allocation of the economic cost of a

2019Under the respondeat superior doctrine, “‘an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.’” (Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 491 ; accord, Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296 .) “Under certain circumstances, the employer may be subject to this form of vicarious liability even for an employee’s willful, malicious, and criminal conduct.” (Patterson, at p. 491; accord, Lisa M., at pp. 296-297.) “To be within the scope of employment, the incident giving rise to the injury mu

2019Under the respondeat superior doctrine, “‘an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.’” (Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 491 ; accord, Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296 .) “Under certain circumstances, the employer may be subject to this form of vicarious liability even for an employee’s willful, malicious, and criminal conduct.” (Patterson, at p. 491; accord, Lisa M., at pp. 296-297.) “To be within the scope of employment, the incident giving rise to the injury mu

2019Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1006 [“except where sexual misconduct by on- duty police officers against members of the public is involved . . . , the employer is not vicariously liable to the third party for such misconduct”].) In addition, “an employer may be liable to a third party for negligently hiring or retaining an unfit employee.” (J.W. v. Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1163 ; accord, Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 .) “Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew o

2019Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1006 [“except where sexual misconduct by on- duty police officers against members of the public is involved . . . , the employer is not vicariously liable to the third party for such misconduct”].) In addition, “an employer may be liable to a third party for negligently hiring or retaining an unfit employee.” (J.W. v. Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1163 ; accord, Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 .) “Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew o

2022(Bailey v. Filco, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1559 .) “If an employee’s tort is personal in nature, mere presence at the place of employment and attendance to occupational duties prior or subsequent to the offense will not give rise to a cause of action against the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” (Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 133, 140 .) “ ‘[E]mployees do not act within the scope of employment when they abuse job-created authority over others 8 for purely personal reasons.’ ” (M.P. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121, 132

2000(Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 209 .) We conclude that imposing such a sweeping doctrine as respondeat superior under the facts of this case would be contrary to the guidance provided by a number of cases that have consistently held that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, sexual misconduct falls outside the course and scope of employment and should not be imputed to the employer. 3 (Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 510 , 907 P.2d 358 ] [hospital not liable under doctrine of respondeat superior for technician

2017Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608 , 618-619, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143 .) Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the respondeat superior doctrine. ( Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 .) Under the going and coming rule, for example, an employee commuting to or from work is typically outside the scope of employment, and the employer is not liable for the employee's torts. ( Id . at p. 961, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 , citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 448-449.) "The 'going and coming' rule is sometimes ascribed to the theory that the employment rela

2017Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608 , 618-619, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143 .) Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the respondeat superior doctrine. ( Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 960 , 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 .) Under the going and coming rule, for example, an employee commuting to or from work is typically outside the scope of employment, and the employer is not liable for the employee's torts. ( Id . at p. 961, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988 , citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 448-449.) "The 'going and coming' rule is sometimes ascribed to the theory that the employment rela

1991Saala v. McFarland, supra, 63 Cal.2d 124 , is instructive in defining the “scope of employment” limitation of section 3601. “ ‘Conduct is within the scope of employment only if the servant is actuated to some extent by an intent to serve his master.’ [Citations.]” (63 Cal .2d at p. 129.) Approaching the question from another perspective, a coemployee’s conduct is within the scope of his or her employment if it could be imputed to the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

1982Cal.App.3d 291, 298-300 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 92 ].) “[S]cope of employment defines a more restricted area of employee conduct than the customary phrase ‘arising out of and in the course of employment. ’ ...” (Saala v. McFarland (1965) 63 Cal.2d 124, 128-129, fn. 3 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 403 P.2d 400 ].) An employee can suffer an injury that is compensable under workers’ compensation laws and at the same time not be within the scope of employment under" the doctrine of respondeat superior.

2020The Defendants’ Appeal A. The Corporate Defendants’ Liability The defendants first contend the trial court’s judgment misapplied the doctrine of respondeat superior—a doctrine providing that “an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 208 .) The employer’s liability in that case is vicarious, rather than direct, because it “is wholly derived from the liability of the employee.” (Lathrop v. HealthCare Partners Medical Group (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1423 .) The defendants

2016(Cf. Lathrop v. HealthCare Partners Medical Group (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1423 ["Under the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . [citations] [t]he employer's liability is wholly derived from the liability of the employee.

2024It reasoned that the undisputed evidence “shows that Klosowski was not engaged in an enterprise undertaken by his employer but was rather engaged in activity for his own personal financial benefit,” citing Baptist v. Robinson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 151, 161-162 (Baptist).

2009Stated another way, “[i]f an employee’s tort is personal in nature, mere presence at the place of employment and attendance to occupational duties prior or subsequent to the offense will not give rise to a cause of action against the employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” [Citation.] In such cases, the losses do not foreseeably result from the conduct of the employer’s enterprise and so are not fairly attributable to the employer as a cost of doing business.’ [Citation.]” (Baptist, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 .) “An essential element of respondeat superior is a causal nexus

2025Law Regarding Employees and Independent Contractors Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an “employer may be [vicariously] liable for the torts its employee commits while acting within the scope of . . . employment.” (Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 472, 481 .) “ ‘Employee[s]’ include most persons ‘in the service of an employer 13 under any . . . contract of hire’ . . . , but do not include independent contractors.” (Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 349 .) “The principal test of an employment relationship is whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to cont

2021Independent Contractor or Employee Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an “employer may be [vicariously] liable for the torts its employee commits while acting within the scope of . . . employment.” (Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 472, 481 .) “ ‘Employee[s]’ include most persons ‘in the service of an employer under any . . . contract of hire’ . . . , but do not include independent contractors.” (S. G.