21 Cal. App. 4th 1604 - Le Elder v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Respondeat superior is imposed for three policy reasons: ‘(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 tire injury.’ [Citation omit ted.] None of these goals would be legitimately accomplished by a rule establishing automatic 24-hour employer liability for 24-hour on-call employees. First, employer liability would not prevent a recurrence of the tortious conduct because an employer has no right to control the purely personal conduct of an employee. Second, although the deep pocket of an employer might give greater assurance of compensation for the victim, that desired economic end would be achieved inequitably because the victim’s losses would not be borne by the person who benefitted from the injury-producing activity.” 21 Cal. App. 4th at 1609-10 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 So. 3d 900 - Migliore v. Gill · 45 Kan. App. 2d 526 - Wayman v. Accor North America, Inc.

2. “Because it is unjust-to exonerate a business from responsibility for injuries occurring in the course of its characteristic activities, an employee’s scope of employment is determined by ascertaining whether the risk involved was typical or broadly incidental to the enterprise undertaken by the employer.’ Where the employee’s conduct has substantially deviated from his or her duties, it is unjust to hold the employer liable. Thus, it is necessary to determine the main purpose of injury-producing activity: If it was the pursuit of the employee’s personal ends, the employer is not liable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Medina v. Fuller · 176 F. Supp. 3d 1263 - Fuller v. Finley Resources, Inc.

3. “[p]ublic policy would be ill-served by a rule establishing [twenty-four] hour employer liability for on-call employees, regardless of the nature of the employee's activities at the time of an accident”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hale v. Spitzer Dodge, Inc., Unpublished Decision (6-29-2006) · Fiano v. Old Saybrook Fire Co. No. 1, Inc.